|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 8, 2020 9:43:16 GMT
Hundreds of thousands of voters were suppressed in Abrams' election, period, which makes that election unfair and at best tenuously legitimate regardless of what the courts said.
To some I suppose.........to me that's closer to supporting anarchy not American law tbh .....
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 8, 2020 22:09:47 GMT
This is a tangential point that doesn't account for the 700,000 voters who were purged from the rolls in the year before the election. If you don't actually care if Abrams conceded, and are just amused by her doing something as harmless as standing behind a Governor sign (reminding people how effed up that election was), then that doesn't really suggest that she and Trump are "almost exactly alike" does it.....since the latter has been, you know, attacking democracy by spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation.......... in addition to not conceding. * It is not "tangential" - it is pertinent rather - the actual number of votes count in an election........and those names being purged was legally upheld. Now I'm supposed to do what here - place YOUR feelings above the law and process? This is why I said we just disagree - we have a differing POV on a political issue in the Ga election............... It hardly justifies 10 posts between us (?) * What Abrams did is a form of fraud - it is not actually "harmless" - I just find it funnier in the overall scheme of life and do not live in Georgia. But she presented her loss as a win, and publicly discounted every vote that was cast against her by the people of Georgia - which by any standard was significant (a difference of 55K) .........that's attacking democracy too and the election (and legal) process as well. I'm posting in a thread called "How Long Will it Take For Trump to Concede" - I said he will pull a "Stacey Abrams" and concede legality only while maintaining the legality of the vote was then also corrupt.........yes, almost exactly alike. It's only pertinent in an incomplete sense and is a transparently selective way of viewing the facts. Pushing the “legally upheld” argument is blindly supporting the rule of law as if it's an objective arbiter of moral good instead of something created and manipulated by people to maintain their power over others. “Close to supporting anarchy”? More like simply recognizing how the system enables disenfranchisement. Abrams was not attacking democracy, quite the opposite in fact… condemning voter suppression is wanting democracy to function properly. Yes, she was attacking the election process...because it was unfair. Abrams and Trump both maintain that the legality of the vote was/is corrupt... but the difference is that in Abrams’ case it was, and in Trump's case it isn’t. Doesn’t seem right to say that they’re almost exactly alike. Sorry if you think this discussion is becoming too protracted, I just find what you’re saying to be wildly off base. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 8, 2020 23:11:29 GMT
The_Cake_of_Roth - It is unable to be resolved between us I feel but I don't mind answering you. We are covering the same ground though - no? I support the Law here, you are supporting your feelings (?) The best - or at least most pacinoyes - way to be clear(er) is to tell a little joke and a movie clip to illustrate it: Two friends are talking and one says "How's your marriage going? and the other says "Pretty good I guess - my wife only cheats on me when she's drunk" ........and then he adds........."although she is drunk ALL the time......."
The point of that joke is to solve the real problem ("drunk all the time".......THEN the cheating), first..........I'm willing to talk about anything afterwards "the system enabling disenfranchisement" etc.....but the real problem HERE is ........... she lost the election.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 9, 2020 8:26:35 GMT
I support the Law here, you are supporting your feelings (?) Reducing my perspective down to my "feelings" over the Law (capitalized as if it were, again, some objective entity) seems weirdly dismissive. I could easily reframe it as "I support the righteous moral stance that motivates Abrams' refusal to concede; you are supporting the man-made law (not God's, as Scofield says) that enables corruption." Not sure how that clip is directly relevant to the issue at hand. Remember what started this discussion was Abrams' refusal to concede, which is far from anarchic or advocating for "cutting down every law." Your last point is backwards to me... corruption in the election process is the real (and only) problem here. You're right that we are covering the same ground at this point, so it's probably best to stop....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 9, 2020 10:38:30 GMT
I support the Law here, you are supporting your feelings (?) Reducing my perspective down to my "feelings" over the "Law" ( capitalized as if it were, again, some objective entity) seems weirdly dismissive. ..... you are supporting the man-made law (not God's, as Scofield says) that enables corruption.You're right that we are covering the same ground at this point, so it's probably best to stop.... Man made Law (can be upper or lower case grammatically actually) - it's what I support here, yes. You used the term "weirdly dismissive" - but rather I'd say that applies to you and Stacey Abrams: Stacey Abrams sought the courts help voluntarily - nobody sued her........... and you are using the term "corruption" which is a Man Made Legal term in this example........and that's provable in court cases (but wasn't here). Those are both attempts to use the Law - but not to follow its rulings (which is anarchy) - right up until the moment the ruling doesn't go Abrams way ......... you then both dismiss the Law entirely. That's exactly what Paul Scofield was referring to in that scene. See you on the boards.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 9, 2020 22:52:49 GMT
Reducing my perspective down to my "feelings" over the "Law" ( capitalized as if it were, again, some objective entity) seems weirdly dismissive. ..... you are supporting the man-made law (not God's, as Scofield says) that enables corruption.You're right that we are covering the same ground at this point, so it's probably best to stop.... Man made Law (can be upper or lower case grammatically actually) - it's what I support here, yes. You used the term "weirdly dismissive" - but rather I'd say that applies to you and Stacey Abrams: Stacey Abrams sought the courts help voluntarily - nobody sued her........... and you are using the term "corruption" which is a Man Made Legal term in this example........and that's provable in court cases (but wasn't here). Those are both attempts to use the Law - but not to follow its rulings (which is anarchy) - right up until the moment the ruling doesn't go Abrams way ......... you then both dismiss the Law entirely. That's exactly what Paul Scofield was referring to in that scene. See you on the boards. You say that it is unable to be resolved between us..... and yet you continue.... okay then. Corruption isn't exclusively defined by what the law dictates. Not agreeing with the courts' rulings is not anarchy...wtf. Guess that makes my mom--who didn't support the court ruling that let the person who killed her jogging sister with his car off easy--an anarchist. "Right up until the moment the ruling doesn't go Abrams way" - I think you mean the right way. Getting tired of repeating the same points that are falling on apparently deaf ears... so maybe let's move on...
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 9, 2020 23:29:01 GMT
Man made Law (can be upper or lower case grammatically actually) - it's what I support here, yes. You used the term "weirdly dismissive" - but rather I'd say that applies to you and Stacey Abrams: Stacey Abrams sought the courts help voluntarily - nobody sued her........... and you are using the term "corruption" which is a Man Made Legal term in this example........and that's provable in court cases (but wasn't here). Those are both attempts to use the Law - but not to follow its rulings (which is anarchy) - right up until the moment the ruling doesn't go Abrams way ......... you then both dismiss the Law entirely. That's exactly what Paul Scofield was referring to in that scene. See you on the boards. You say that it is unable to be resolved between us..... and yet you continue.... Not really ....... you asked what the Paul Scofield scene had to do with anything so .........I told you. Don't ask the question then..... Shrug.....Not agreeing with the courts' rulings is not anarchy...wtf. Guess that makes my mom--who didn't support the court ruling that let the person who killed her jogging sister with his car off easy--an anarchist. If your Mom is Stacey Abrams or like her has the ability to wrongly influence the populace and declares the court is corrupt publicly.....then yeah. "Right up until the moment the ruling doesn't go Abrams way" - I think you mean the right way. ...... Well it doesn't really matter what I mean ........only what you feel.
Getting tired of repeating the same points that are falling on apparently deaf ears... so maybe let's move on..... yeah, let's do that now....nice we agree on something, eh?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 9, 2020 23:39:20 GMT
This bitch ain't leaving.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 10, 2020 7:32:41 GMT
You say that it is unable to be resolved between us..... and yet you continue.... Not really ....... you asked what the Paul Scofield scene had to do with anything so .........I told you. Don't ask the question then..... Shrug.....Not agreeing with the courts' rulings is not anarchy...wtf. Guess that makes my mom--who didn't support the court ruling that let the person who killed her jogging sister with his car off easy--an anarchist. If your Mom is Stacey Abrams or like her has the ability to wrongly influence the populace and declares the court is corrupt publicly.....then yeah. "Right up until the moment the ruling doesn't go Abrams way" - I think you mean the right way. ...... Well it doesn't really matter what I mean ........only what you feel.
Getting tired of repeating the same points that are falling on apparently deaf ears... so maybe let's move on..... yeah, let's do that now....nice we agree on something, eh? Your ego really won't let anyone else have the final word, will it? (that's a rhetorical question, meaning I'm not actually requesting an answer) So condemning voter suppression is "wrongly influencing the populace"... gotcha. Next time I talk to my mom (who is not Stacey Abrams), I'll be sure to let her know that she's an anarchist.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 10, 2020 17:25:00 GMT
Your ego really won't let anyone else have the final word, will it? (that's a rhetorical question, meaning I'm not actually requesting an answer) So condemning voter suppression is "wrongly influencing the populace"... gotcha. Next time I talk to my mom (who is not Stacey Abrams), I'll be sure to let her know that she's an anarchist. Waste your time doing something else like eating kale, dirt or air... how about that. LMAO. Not too many people are comparing the two and for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 10, 2020 17:32:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Nov 10, 2020 18:03:47 GMT
Waste your time doing something else like eating kale, dirt or air... how about that. LMAO. Not too many people are comparing the two and for good reason. One of these things is not like the others........... but is like Donald Trump...... You definitely won't score high on the originality scale.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 10, 2020 18:10:53 GMT
You definitely won't score high on the originality scale. ....just messing with you pal.......love ya
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 11, 2020 14:02:47 GMT
I work in elections, in Uruguay we have no post vote. But we have observe votes. That are the ones from people that don't vote in their own circuit (rurals, dissabled, election workers) and among that 10% are anulled before their count. With Post vote that % should increase dramatically, votes rejection should be between 25 to 50%.-
I don't think the fraud impares on US election. But I wish to know the % of nulles votes.- Less than 25% means that probably an important fraud or at least absurd negligence.-
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 11, 2020 14:10:17 GMT
Well....I'd say he pulls a "Stacey Abrams" (Democrat) who invented this sad stuff btw .......where he will "acknowledge Biden as the "legal" winner" but never actually concedes to Biden's victory himself....... sort of like Abrams did to Brian Kemp in Georgia. A pox on both parties .... Except in that case, Abrams literally had that election stolen from her. I think her refusal to concede was kind of justified, unlike Trump's bullshit claims. To be fair, she said she lost the election, but according to the Georgia rules, could be a seccond election between Kemp and Abrams.- At the end she has not enough votes.- Today, she still autoproclamates the Governor of Georgia.- This time Trump said thousends of email votes, are nules, so he won the election counting the valids ones.-
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 11, 2020 14:16:22 GMT
* It is not "tangential" - it is pertinent rather - the actual number of votes count in an election........and those names being purged was legally upheld. Now I'm supposed to do what here - place YOUR feelings above the law and process? This is why I said we just disagree - we have a differing POV on a political issue in the Ga election............... It hardly justifies 10 posts between us (?) * What Abrams did is a form of fraud - it is not actually "harmless" - I just find it funnier in the overall scheme of life and do not live in Georgia. But she presented her loss as a win, and publicly discounted every vote that was cast against her by the people of Georgia - which by any standard was significant (a difference of 55K) .........that's attacking democracy too and the election (and legal) process as well. I'm posting in a thread called "How Long Will it Take For Trump to Concede" - I said he will pull a "Stacey Abrams" and concede legality only while maintaining the legality of the vote was then also corrupt.........yes, almost exactly alike. It's only pertinent in an incomplete sense and is a transparently selective way of viewing the facts. Pushing the “legally upheld” argument is blindly supporting the rule of law as if it's an objective arbiter of moral good instead of something created and manipulated by people to maintain their power over others. “Close to supporting anarchy”? More like simply recognizing how the system enables disenfranchisement. Abrams was not attacking democracy, quite the opposite in fact… condemning voter suppression is wanting democracy to function properly. Yes, she was attacking the election process...because it was unfair. Abrams and Trump both maintain that the legality of the vote was/is corrupt... but the difference is that in Abrams’ case it was, and in Trump's case it isn’t. Doesn’t seem right to say that they’re almost exactly alike. Sorry if you think this discussion is becoming too protracted, I just find what you’re saying to be wildly off base. *shrugs* It's the same Trump is not attacking democracy, quite opposite in fact... condemning post votes, for not having the same guarentees than presential votes, is wanting democracy to function properly. Yes, he is attacking the election process...because it is unfair. Abrams and Trump both maintain that the legality of the vote was/is corrupt... but the difference is that in Trumps’ case it is, and in Abrams's case it wasn’t. Doesn’t seem right to say that they’re almost exactly alike.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Nov 11, 2020 14:23:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 11, 2020 23:36:04 GMT
I work in elections, in Uruguay we have no post vote. But we have observe votes. That are the ones from people that don't vote in their own circuit (rurals, dissabled, election workers) and among that 10% are anulled before their count. With Post vote that % should increase dramatically, votes rejection should be between 25 to 50%.- I don't think the fraud impares on US election. But I wish to know the % of nulles votes.- Less than 25% means that probably an important fraud or at least absurd negligence.- have no idea how voting in Uruguay works but the American system is particularly robust and has lots of safeguards in place. The rejection rate for mail ballots is typically between 1%-2%. It's unclear how those numbers will be after all the votes have been counted but the number will likely be somewhat higher because there were a lot more mail ballots this year because of the pandemic. Annulling 25% to 50% of your votes... that statistic is insane. An American election would never void that many votes. The system in Uruguay sounds pretty bad, my dude, unless I'm not understanding it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 11, 2020 23:45:22 GMT
It's the same Trump is not attacking democracy, quite opposite in fact... condemning post votes, for not having the same guarentees than presential votes, is wanting democracy to function properly. Yes, he is attacking the election process...because it is unfair. Mail-in ballots are not unfair. They're foundational to the electoral process and have lots of safeguards in place (and they're rejected at a higher margin). It's how overseas servicemen vote and have always voted. The reason there was a spike in mail-in ballots this year is because a lot of people (mostly democrats, no coincidence there ) are concerned about the pandemic. And they were right to be concerned because Covid numbers in the U.S. shot up post-election (we're talking over 100K new cases per day). Wanting democracy to function properly means not forcing every American citizen to come out on election day and possibly have to take off work and spend hours in line to vote in a normal year, let alone in a cycle where the world is ravaged by a pandemic. That's a recipe for disenfranchisement, the opposite of democracy. Abrams and Trump both maintain that the legality of the vote was/is corrupt... but the difference is that in Trumps’ case it is... what the fuck are you talking about.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 12, 2020 0:15:22 GMT
It's the same Trump is not attacking democracy, quite opposite in fact... condemning post votes, for not having the same guarentees than presential votes, is wanting democracy to function properly. Yes, he is attacking the election process...because it is unfair. Mail-in ballots are not unfair. They're foundational to the electoral process and have lots of safeguards in place (and they're rejected at a higher margin). It's how overseas servicemen vote and have always voted. The reason there was a spike in mail-in ballots this year is because a lot of people (mostly democrats, no coincidence there ) are concerned about the pandemic. And they were right to be concerned because Covid numbers in the U.S. shot up post-election (we're talking over 100K new cases per day). Wanting democracy to function properly means not forcing every American citizen to come out on election day and possibly have to take off work and spend hours in line to vote in a normal year, let alone in a cycle where the world is ravaged by a pandemic. That's a recipe for disenfranchisement, the opposite of democracy. Abrams and Trump both maintain that the legality of the vote was/is corrupt... but the difference is that in Trumps’ case it is... what the fuck are you talking about. I work in an electoral collage, I supervizede dozens of elections, I don't trust in mail-in ballots. In fact in Uruguay we said not in 2009 to the plebiscite mail ballots for people who are in foreign countries (and of course I was personally against).- I can understand for overseas serviceman, but not for common people, specially because voting in US is voluntary, not obligatory like Uruguay.- We had 2 months ago election, and everybody vote (90%), and the covid increase started this week, it was a rainy day, but fortunately none got covid-19.- I care about facts and not about feelings (like Matilda's cousin).- And facts said that a wide margin should be rejected. And trully fact is I don't know the margin of rejected votes. Maybe you know, the American people should know. If the reject margin is big, Trump argue probably is infundated he is just creating an stupid myth, if the margin is slim, Trump probably is right.- Any way, Transparency in Election is unfortunately impossible in US, because there are 50 different ways of voting counting, I can understand this in a state election, but in a National Election is weird (has some logic but still weird).- In Illinois for example you could inscribe in the election census the day of the election, and that is why even the death people votes in the States (in other states like Florida, until 2017, people who were condemn for even minor offense lost for ever their votes rights).-
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 12, 2020 0:59:33 GMT
I care about facts and not about feelings (like Matilda's cousin).- And facts said that a wide margin should be rejected. And trully fact is I don't know the margin of rejected votes. Maybe you know, the American people should know. I care about facts too, whatya know. And the fact is that if a huge chunk of ballots are being tossed out in Uruguay's elections than something is very wrong there. Either you have widespread fraud attempts (which is rare in U.S. btw) or a large population of voters are being disenfranchised and silenced. Don't know anything about it so I can't assume, but any election in any country that voids that many ballots has a deeply flawed system at best, or a deeply broken and undemocratic one at worst. America has plenty of disenfranchisement issues but the actual process of voting and vote-counting is strong and resistant to error. But like, if you're getting your election news from Twitter than this conversation is pointless. Dead people didn't vote in Illinois or anywhere else. That's pure misinformation that props up in every election without evidence and is really easy to fact-check. You literally just have to google this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 12, 2020 1:44:38 GMT
I work in elections, in Uruguay we have no post vote. But we have observe votes. That are the ones from people that don't vote in their own circuit (rurals, dissabled, election workers) and among that 10% are anulled before their count. With Post vote that % should increase dramatically, votes rejection should be between 25 to 50%.- I don't think the fraud impares on US election. But I wish to know the % of nulles votes.- Less than 25% means that probably an important fraud or at least absurd negligence.- have no idea how voting in Uruguay works but the American system is particularly robust and has lots of safeguards in place. The rejection rate for mail ballots is typically between 1%-2%. It's unclear how those numbers will be after all the votes have been counted but the number will likely be somewhat higher because there were a lot more mail ballots this year because of the pandemic. Annulling 25% to 50% of your votes... that statistic is insane. An American election would never void that many votes. The system in Uruguay sounds pretty bad, my dude, unless I'm not understanding it correctly. I conceade that, more correct is to post 2,5 to 5 % of the votes could ended easily nullified. But between 10 to 25% could be impugnated.- No, I have the number about 3%of the votes were nullified in Uruguay in last election.- But we have not mail-in votes. With mail-it votes, could be impugnated at last 10% of the post votes.- Maybe even a 25 % if you impugnated strictus sensus. Maybe only 1/ 10 of the impugnated votes at the end are nullified. 1 in ten in a close, election could switch places.- And I'm not talking about a massive fraud, I just talking about mercenary electoral party workers- party lawyers-
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 12, 2020 1:51:38 GMT
I care about facts and not about feelings (like Matilda's cousin).- And facts said that a wide margin should be rejected. And trully fact is I don't know the margin of rejected votes. Maybe you know, the American people should know. I care about facts too, whatya know. And the fact is that if a huge chunk of ballots are being tossed out in Uruguay's elections than something is very wrong there. Either you have widespread fraud attempts (which is rare in U.S. btw) or a large population of voters are being disenfranchised and silenced. Don't know anything about it so I can't assume, but any election in any country that voids that many ballots has a deeply flawed system at best, or a deeply broken and undemocratic one at worst. America has plenty of disenfranchisement issues but the actual process of voting and vote-counting is strong and resistant to error. But like, if you're getting your election news from Twitter than this conversation is pointless. Dead people didn't vote in Illinois or anywhere else. That's pure misinformation that props up in every election without evidence and is really easy to fact-check. You literally just have to google this stuff. I don't know what happened, I just talking about impugnation.- The elections should be like Cesar's wife, not only honest (transparent)but looks like one.- I had not clue of this twitter thing in Illinois. Donald Trump don't create the phrase Dead people voting, is usually an urban legend with almost 250 years in USA, and I'm skeptical about that, despite the fact that in Argentina is too vivid to called it totally fake.- Unfortunately, today polititians in the United States, are destroying the electoral system that is built by trust. First Bernie Sanders in 2016, Sanders vs. Rodham Clinton, then Trump before the elections in 2016, then Hillary Clintons and her supporters after the election, then Stacey Abrams in 2018, then Democratic PArty to Tulsi Gabbard (who was forbiden in being on the debates because she harmed kamala Harris) 2019-20, then the primal election where Pette B. was robbed, coincidently the main benifitiaries were Biden and Harris, and now Trump again.- I don't know if there are right or not, but there are harming the election system.- And this could ended in a Tyrany or in a more cristaline election system.-
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Nov 12, 2020 2:22:42 GMT
Why I don't trust in Mail in Ballots 1) Transparency 2) Guarentees 3) Equals Rigths 4) Nullified 5) Rensponsaiblity.
People who vote in presences, has more guarentees that none, could impugnated their votes or change it.- People who vote in precense, usually vote alone, none is pushing for vote something that is against their convictions.- Elderly people want to vote alone, without the naughty presence of his partner, children or grandchilden who pushed them to vote the ballots they wanted.- If many people forced others to vote what they want, in post, they are changing the results of an election. And this should not be allowed.- Voting is an act of responsability, so you have to go to your circuit, mail voting is just for people who really can't, not for lazy people.- And law from ancient Hamurabi times never protected lazy/negligent people.- And this is the main difference between Democracy and Demagogue
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Nov 12, 2020 7:39:04 GMT
This bitch ain't leaving. Nope, his dictatorship is in full swing now that he’s lost (bigly) and so he, his criminally corrupt thug family and the other embarrassing cronies in his circle are shamelessly trying to steal a free and fair election in front of the world’s eyes. The country has never been at a lower point than it is now. This made me chuckle however.....
|
|