# Trump/Biden 2020 Election thread



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Since we all love both candidates and are following the news closely I thought maybe we can have an election day thread. All rumours,riots,hearsay,and upsets should be OK.

I'll start...

Pennsylvania is in trouble...Biden campaign manager said:

"We continue to have multiple pathways to 270 electoral votes" says they can win 270 even without PA and FL " a short time ago. I think they're worried about PA...Trump has surged the last few days.

Good news for the Dem's...(from the Washington Post)

Biden is the first presidential candidate to sweep Dixville Notch since Richard Nixon in 1960. All 5 votes haha.
_( Twitter link removed by moderator )_


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

PA is not seen to be essential for a Biden win and is known to be tight.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

*Note to all forum participants:*

To help counteract confusion and disinformation during the coming days, I request that you only post/cite news from major media outlets.

If I see posts containing disinformation, I will moderate them or take actions against users if they are repeatedly doing this. Hostile posts or support for violence will not be permitted.

Specifically relating to this election, the following are considered reputable sources. You can link directly to any of these:

Major US news networks: CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox
Major public broadcasters: BBC, CBC, PBS, NPR, DW
National newspapers: Globe and Mail, National Post, USA Today, WSJ, NY Times

Please don't post links to Twitter. Too unreliable and random.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eder said:


> "We continue to have multiple pathways to 270 electoral votes" says they can win 270 even without PA and FL " a short time ago. I think they're worried about PA...Trump has surged the last few days.


If I were Trump, I'd be more worried about the fact that TEXAS is considered a swing state. While it is still leaning Republican, that's 38 votes compared to 20 for PA. So, that's part of the reason that Trump's path to winning is a lot more narrow than Biden's. If states that were traditionally Republican go towards Biden, winning the other swing states don't really matter as much.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

moderator2 said:


> *Note to all forum participants:*
> 
> To help counteract confusion and disinformation during the coming days, I request that you only post/cite news from major media outlets.
> 
> ...


Why this mania for censorship? What are you afraid of?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Trump leading NH & Indiana...Sleepy joe ahead in Kentucky


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Trump declared winner in Kentucky already
Florida just flipped blue as well as Georgia


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Trump has a lead in Florida with 20% of votes reported.

ETA: Biden now slightly ahead with 22% reporting.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> If I were Trump, I'd be more worried about the fact that TEXAS is considered a swing state. While it is still leaning Republican, that's 38 votes compared to 20 for PA. So, that's part of the reason that Trump's path to winning is a lot more narrow than Biden's. If states that were traditionally Republican go towards Biden, winning the other swing states don't really matter as much.


Well many of the people who voted for dumb policies which are killing California are fleeing to other states, and bringing their political ideology with them, not realizing that it's the cause of their problems.








Frustrated Californians move out, say coronavirus 'pandemic was last straw'


'I BLAME THE STATE': Many frustrated residents are leaving California to live in states with looser stay-at-home regulations amid the coronavirus pandemic.Texas appears to be a popular destination.




abc7news.com


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

More like changing demographics.








The Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Electorate


In battleground states, Hispanics grew more than other racial or ethnic groups as a share of eligible voters.




www.pewresearch.org


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I dont think Trump can win if he loses Georgia & Florida.
T wins W Virginia


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Florida is looking very close...

ETA: Biden has a 2.5% lead in Florida with 72% reporting. Although, apparently most of the remaining vote is expected to lean Trump so he is expected to win Florida.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Has the mail in votes been included in early numbers in Florida? If so then I agree it may turn red as the night progresses. Only 60k votes separate the 2.
Trump up 20k in Florida now...wow!


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eder said:


> Has the mail in votes been included in early numbers in Florida? If so then I agree it may turn red as the night progresses. Only 60k votes separate the 2.
> Trump up 20k in Florida now...wow!


I don't think mail in and early votes have been counted yet, but it may depend on the state and their rules for counting. For example, Texas counted the early/mail in votes first which is probably why Biden had the early lead, but Pennsylvania starts counting mail in votes tomorrow... and there is approximately 2.6M mail in votes.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Market futures turning green...looks like they think Biden wins.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am glad our system of electing a government is so simple and don't wish to change it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> I don't think mail in and early votes have been counted yet, but it may depend on the state and their rules for counting. For example, Texas counted the early/mail in votes first which is probably why Biden had the early lead, but Pennsylvania starts counting mail in votes tomorrow... and there is approximately 2.6M mail in votes.


Trump is going to win Florida. Looks like Biden will win Arizona. May come down to PA and WI.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Chinese Yuan dropping hard...that means Trump win?


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

I predict Trump... buts its looking close ! I am sure it will be in the courts...


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

States we might not know tonight: 

Pennsylvania
Michigan
Wisconsin
Georgia

That’s 62 electoral votes in total. 62 is a big number in a race for 270. That’s why we might not know tonight.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

@doctrine I deleted your post for disinformation. Consider this your first warning.

The outcome of the election is not yet known. You have made an incorrect statement about the winner, when the vote (and counting) is still under way and projections do not yet indicate a clear winner.

Counting will continue for some time. News desks at the major media outlets are able to project state winners, and might possibly project the overall winner, but they have not done this yet.

I will moderate posts that prematurely claim a victory before the major media outlets have reached a consensus.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

I will reiterate some of doctrine's points but leave out the incorrect conclusions that were attached.

The vote is very close so far. Trump is *projected to win Texas, Florida, and Ohio*, which is a huge win!

Other states have not yet finished counting ballots, and there is also a back log of mail-in ballots. The overall winner is not yet known at the moment and due to the pandemic, there is a large number of mail-in ballots.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Lol. Ok let me try this - Biden was widely predicted to win in a huge landslide. So far, the results have been the complete opposite. Trump is doing extremely well and can now easily win. Just 24 hours ago he was supposed to have been wiped out. Go watch the news networks. They are in shock. And some people are angry.

And the Senate is looking likely to stay Republican. There seems to be a wide consensus on that. It is confirming the trend seen in the White House race. There probably won't be a full blue wave.

Pollsters will be embarrassed for being so grossly wrong. They are off by 20% in Pennsylvania and Michigan with 64% of the vote in. Biden now needs 2 out of the 3 blue wall states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) and is trailing all 3.

There were polls showing Biden ahead of Trump nationally by 8-10%. He is so far ahead by just 1.5% with plenty of California votes in. That is a BIG difference. On a national scale.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Well stated @doctrine . I just wanted to make sure people weren't posting misleading information about the final outcome. It may be a while yet before the winner is known.

Trump has, as you said, performed extremely well compared to expectations.

The National Post: Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden: It could still take days to find out who will be the next U.S. president


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Trump is prematurely declaring victory and wants states to stop counting ballots. Here are notes posted live by Fox News while Trump spoke in front of an audience just a few minutes ago.

The anchors on Fox News are saying that Trump has gone too far with these statements. They observe that he has clearly done well, but it's not right for him to prematurely declare victory. "We haven't called the election yet".

More in this article:
Trump Falsely Tries To Claim Victory Despite Key States Still Counting (NPR)


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Why this mania for censorship? What are you afraid of?


Do not let the name fool you its the really the Communist Canadian money forum or the Communist money forum for short.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I never watched any of it last night, just checked the CNN site and was very surprised how close it is.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

yawn...
fat lady singin' yet....?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

wow! never heard so much talk about "male" ballots! ....what the....?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

how's my man Kanye doin'?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

someone call me when it's over?
I'll be watching the Hallmark channel...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

:) lonewolf said:


> Do not let the name fool you its the really the Communist Canadian money forum or the Communist money forum for short.


 ... if so, then you would have been long banned (aka exiled) to the permafrost/Siberia, if not alternatively silenced permanently.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

(serving wolf a cuppa tea): "One lump, or two, Sir?"


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Well that took a turn - Trump betting odds down to 15c now. Biden at 85c. You could've bet on Biden for 20c last night.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The polls may not have been as wrong as people think, although the massive amounts of mail ballots and the delay in counting them made it look that way.

The early returns heavily favored Trump, as most Democrat supporters mailed in their votes. Also, most large urban centres that have huge amounts of votes to count trend heavily towards the Democrats. Biden is quickly closing the gap and now leads in Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona.......and is leading or closing the gap in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

Time will tell, but the Democrats appear to have held the House of Representatives, made a gain of 1 in the Senate with one seat to be in a runoff in the future. If Biden wins the Presidency, the Democrats gain the VP vote to break ties. It looks like they fell a few Senators short of a majority, but with some middle of the road Republicans they may be able to get things done.

If the current trends hold true......the Democrats "flipped" a few States and Senate seats. Any other time that would be considered a big victory.

EIther may still win......but unfortunately it reveals that America is deeply divided. Most politicians from both sides appear content to wait......except Trump.

Even VP Mike Pence immediately disagreed with Trump's crazy appearance last night. To tell the States to stop counting is ridiculous.

It isn't over until it's over though.

P.S. If I got some States trending wrong, sorry but it is changing quickly.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

sags said:


> The polls may not have been as wrong as people think, although the massive amounts of mail ballots and the delay in counting them made it look that way.


They talked about the "red mirage". The expectation was that the Republican votes in certain states would have been counted early because they voted at the polls on election day. But because of the amount of mail in votes by the Democrats, preliminary results would have favoured the Republicans, but flip when the mail-in votes were counted... hence Trump calling for all the counting of mail-in votes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think you meant Trump called for stopping all the counting of mail-in votes.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

sags said:


> I think you meant Trump called for stopping all the counting of mail-in votes.


Yeah, missed a few words.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> They talked about the "red mirage". The expectation was that the Republican votes in certain states would have been counted early because they voted at the polls on election day. But because of the amount of mail in votes by the Democrats, preliminary results would have favoured the Republicans, but flip when the mail-in votes were counted... hence Trump calling for all the counting of mail-in votes.


PA is one of the states to watch here. 
Go read up on it.
They don't need to be signed with a signature matching the registration








Pennsylvania ballots can’t be tossed out over voters' signatures, court says


The prospect of disqualified mail-in ballots poses a greater threat to Biden’s candidacy.




www.nbcnews.com





Ballots received AFTER election day might be counted.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pennsylvania-legal-challenge-absentee-ballots-1.5788966


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

I appreciate people sticking with the listed reputable news sources. Thanks @MrMatt


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

moderator2 said:


> Trump is prematurely declaring victory and wants states to stop counting ballots. Here are notes posted live by Fox News while Trump spoke in front of an audience just a few minutes ago.
> 
> The anchors on Fox News are saying that Trump has gone too far with these statements. They observe that he has clearly done well, but it's not right for him to prematurely declare victory. "We haven't called the election yet".
> 
> ...


Full clip, not just the single statement at about 8 minutes.








President Trump Remarks on Election Status


President Trump delivered remarks from the East Room of the White House on Election Night, before the race had been called. The president thanked his supporters and talked about the states he had won. President Trump also claimed that there were irregularities in the vote counting process. "This...




www.c-span.org





Yes, he's alleging that there may be fraud.
It is essential that the law is followed during the election.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, the Biden campaign and the media stressed all night that the mail in ballots were huge and would be counted last in some States. Some States didn't even begin to count them until after the election day venues closed. In US election there are lagging votes but the networks can take a calculated guess at the result. This time........the votes were a staggering amount and heavily favored the Democrats, so it amplified the normal delays and made it impossible to "project" the winner.

At this time........either Biden or Trump could win.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In Pennsylvania, the mail in ballots are counted up to 3 days after the election IF they are postmarked by election day.

It is up to the States to decide and has been supported by the courts already. SCOTUS is not going to leap in to save Trump by throwing out legal votes.

The court would lose all credibility and Chief Justice Roberts and others wouldn't allow it.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> PA is one of the states to watch here.
> Go read up on it.
> They don't need to be signed with a signature matching the registration
> 
> ...


FWIW Biden is currently leading in Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan which is enough for the win, so what happens in Pennsylvania may not be an overall factor: 2020 Election Results Live

The thing about the election is that the individual states set the rules, and 22 states allow counting ballots received after the election day, provided that the postmark is on or before Nov 3. So it isn't that Pennsylvania is unique in that regard. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mail-in-voting-explainer-1.5770262

At any case, remember states rights that Republicans like to tout around when they think that the federal government is over-reaching? I like how they are silent about it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> FWIW Biden is currently leading in Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan which is enough for the win, so what happens in Pennsylvania may not be an overall factor: 2020 Election Results Live
> 
> The thing about the election is that the individual states set the rules, and 22 states allow counting ballots received after the election day, provided that the postmark is on or before Nov 3. So it isn't that Pennsylvania is unique in that regard. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mail-in-voting-explainer-1.5770262
> 
> At any case, remember states rights that Republicans like to tout around when they think that the federal government is over-reaching? I like how they are silent about it.


Now what about ballots sent after election day?
If they can't tell, they'll just assume they were sent on time... that raises questions.
That is an important question, if there is no postmark, it might not be a valid ballot under the law.

"Mail ballots will now be accepted if they are received by 5 p.m. on the Friday after the election and were either postmarked by Nov. 3 or there is no evidence to suggest they were sent after Election Day."









Pennsylvania Supreme Court Extends Vote By Mail Deadline, Allows Drop Boxes


The decisions come just seven weeks before Election Day and as a flurry of election-related lawsuits heat up around the country.




www.npr.org





What overreach are you talking about?
The parties to the election is challenging that the law is not being followed in the counting of votes.

Please provide an approved news source to substantiate your claims of federal overreach.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Michigan - Trump comfortably in the lead, it seems impossible for Biden to catch up, when suddenly at 4 am they find 138,339 ballots all for Biden, none for anyone else
Milwaukee - There are 560,000 registered voters, when 460,000 ballots have been cast in person, Trump is winning, suddenly 200,000 mail in votes show up mainly for Biden. So, 560,000 registered voters and 760,000 votes.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Looks like a big mandate for law & order ...wow.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

peterk said:


> Well that took a turn - Trump betting odds down to 15c now. Biden at 85c. You could've bet on Biden for 20c last night.


How liquid is that market? Maybe it was just shallow volume.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Now what about ballots sent after election day?
> If they can't tell, they'll just assume they were sent on time... that raises questions.
> That is an important question, if there is no postmark, it might not be a valid ballot under the law.
> 
> ...


The wording is pretty clear about the ballots. You want to explain how the ballots are going to be sent after election day? You assuming that someone is going to just drop off a bunch of ballots and say I found these? More than likely, the ballots that are going to be counted without postmarks are going to be those from drop-off ballot boxes which should have been closed off and collected by election day.



MrMatt said:


> Ballots received AFTER election day might be counted.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pennsylvania-legal-challenge-absentee-ballots-1.5788966


_Two federal lawsuits aim to prevent absentee votes from being counted in Pennsylvania. Republicans have already laid the groundwork at the Supreme Court for an effort to exclude ballots that arrive after polls close Tuesday. Trump has railed for several days about the high court's pre-election refusal to rule out those ballots._

Hence the reason they pushed for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> The wording is pretty clear about the ballots. You want to explain how the ballots are going to be sent after election day?


Yes, that's the point, there is the wording of the law, which is why Democrats are scared of Barrett, she's one of those judges that actually reads the law.
The Postmarked by election day is actually a very important condition.


> _Two federal lawsuits aim to prevent absentee votes from being counted in Pennsylvania. Republicans have already laid the groundwork at the Supreme Court for an effort to exclude ballots that arrive after polls close Tuesday. Trump has railed for several days about the high court's pre-election refusal to rule out those ballots._
> 
> Hence the reason they pushed for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.


That's your argument?

The existance of the Supreme Court is "Federal Overreach"


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, that's the point, there is the wording of the law, which is why Democrats are scared of Barrett, she's one of those judges that actually reads the law.
> The Postmarked by election day is actually a very important condition.
> 
> That's your argument?
> ...


No, the fact that they want to use the Federal Supreme Court to overturn a decision already made by the state supreme court for a state process. Remember that the election set to elect state representatives to the electoral college. It isn't to elect the President. How the state representatives are selected is spelled out by the Constitution:

_Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector._

So, yes, given that the Constitution states that it is the state's responsibility to select the electors, having the federal government override what the state decides should be viewed as federal overreach. 

So, the law is that the state is responsible for the appointment and methods of selection. If Barrett is following the law as you said, then the federal Supreme Court would reject the challenge.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> No, the fact that they want to use the Federal Supreme Court to overturn a decision already made by the state supreme court for a state process. Remember that the election set to elect state representatives to the electoral college. It isn't to elect the President. How the state representatives are selected is spelled out by the Constitution:
> 
> _Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector._
> 
> ...


The state is still selecting the electors.

SCOTUS is the top court, if any lower court gets an interpretation wrong, it is their job to correct it.
If PA law says, as you claim, that the ballot must be postmarked, and a court rules that the postmark is optional, that ruling should be overturned.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mail in ballots received late and without an appropriate postmark should not be counted.

The rule affects both Democrat and Republican voters.

Also, there is a hearing in Federal court today about mail - ballots sitting in USPS offices and warehouses.

The judge is the same one who ordered the USPS to deliver the votes in time for the election. It wasn't done.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> The judge is the same one who ordered the USPS to deliver the votes in time for the election. It wasn't done. Those votes will be counted.


Unless Trump plays his immunity idol, in which case they will not count.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think the most important thing here is clarity on the ballot counting. Hopefully a bag of 200k ballots don't "accidentally" appear or disappear. The count needs to be impartial and correct, then I'm sure Americans will accept the results.

It may be a month before this gets sorted out.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> I think the most important thing here is clarity on the ballot counting. Hopefully a bag of 200k ballots don't "accidentally" appear or disappear. The count needs to be impartial and correct, then I'm sure Americans will accept the results.
> 
> It may be a month before this gets sorted out.


There are lots of allegations, apparently "due to COVID".
It really seems like they didn't do a good job of ensuring truly fair and open process.

I really like how the Conservative party did theirs, including the open livestreams.
Clear rules, publicly accountable.

I think the problem is that the US has different rules, constant changes, and too much is happening behind closed doors.

As far as a "bag of 200k ballots" just showing up, I predict those types of allegations will be made.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Why do all the states have different rules. You would think a Federal election would have federal rules and everyone would do the same thing. Also, what is wrong with one person one vote. Count them up and see who has the most and that person wins. This electoral college stuff doesn't help the process any either.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

OptsyEagle said:


> Why do all the states have different rules. You would think a Federal election would have federal rules and everyone would do the same thing. Also, what is wrong with one person one vote. Count them up and see who has the most and that person wins. This electoral college stuff doesn't help the process any either.


That makes it unfair for unpopulated areas. Taken to the extreme, if one city had 90% of the population and the other 10% are spread out evenly over the rest of the country. That 10% have many issues that are essentially ignored as that city has all the power.

ltr


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As far as I'm concerned, it is 'fake news' to say that 200k votes just appeared that were 100% Biden. Trump's vote total has also continued to increase.

I think there is a lot of misinformation be promulgated to rile up Trump supporters.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just to add: Susan Collins is such a waste of space. She is a moderate Republican that worries and pretends to not endorse Trump/McConnell approach, yet enables them. Maine went overwhelmingly for Biden, yet will have a GOP Senator that might clinch a GOP majority in the Senate that allows McConnell to blockade everything until at least 2022. If she were truly a moderate she should be an independent and allow the Dens to set the Senate agenda (and vote as she pleases to represent the people of Maine).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People talking about "finding" hundreds of thousands of votes, have no clue.

The polling venues are closely watched by election officials and lawyers from BOTH parties.

CNN just reported from the Michigan venue for counting the ballots and there are 134 Republican "observers" and lawyers in the room, as well as a bunch of Democratic lawyers following them around. A couple people had to be removed from the venue because they threatened violence and there is a big crowd outside demanding to come in as "observers". Apparently there are no pre-set rules on who can be an "observer", but they aren't going to let anymore in.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The state is still selecting the electors.
> 
> SCOTUS is the top court, if any lower court gets an interpretation wrong, it is their job to correct it.
> If PA law says, as you claim, that the ballot must be postmarked, and a court rules that the postmark is optional, that ruling should be overturned.


So, the law itself states the following:
_The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, *or deliver it in person to said county board of election.*_








2019 Act 77






www.legis.state.pa.us





The bolded part is where the postmark requirement becomes open to interpretation since if you deliver it in person at an official dropbox, by election day, there will not be a postmark. Which is where the judgement comes into play:








Pa. Supreme Court rules in favor of mail-in ballot extension


For three days following the Nov. 3 election, counties in Pennsylvania will be permitted to tally votes that were postmarked by 8 p.m. on Election Day...




www.post-gazette.com





Again, no issue if the ballots in question come from dropboxes that were sealed as of 8pm Nov 3, or overseas from the military. A serious issue if ballots were coming from unknown sources, or people are dropping them after the fact.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> So, the law itself states the following:
> _The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, *or deliver it in person to said county board of election.*_
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link, what horrible formatting.

The dropbox could be nominated as representative of the county board of election, so as long as you deliver it in person to the board (ie the box) you'd be clear. Also i believe that they sealed the boxes on time, which is good.

Look at this section regarding mail in.

(h) [which is received in the office of the county board of elections after five o'clock P.M. on the Friday immediately preceding the election and no later than five o'clock P.M. on the seventh day following an election] shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if [the absentee ballot is postmarked no later than the day immediately preceding the election.] 

Really confusing, but depending how the courts rule lots of ballots may or may not be allowed, it's kind of crazy to be debating this AFTER the election.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> That makes it unfair for unpopulated areas. Taken to the extreme, if one city had 90% of the population and the other 10% are spread out evenly over the rest of the country. That 10% have many issues that are essentially ignored as that city has all the power.
> 
> ltr


That's literally the way politics works. There is some regional redistribution.

But Canadian politics is basically defined by 3 urban centers, comprisingly about 1/3 of the population.

Ontario in particular is interesting, look at the electoral map.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Really confusing, but depending how the courts rule lots of ballots may or may not be allowed, it's kind of crazy to be debating this AFTER the election.


I think it is one of those things that they thought: "Ah, what's the likelihood that it is going to be a factor in the election?", and just kicked the can down the road.

At the moment, it doesn't look like it may be a factor as Wisconsin has been declared for Biden, which gives him 248 and he is leading in Michigan (16), and Nevada (6), which gives him 270. So basically the 3 states to look for are Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. While North Carolina (15), and Georgia (16) still in play.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> Why do all the states have different rules. You would think a Federal election would have federal rules and everyone would do the same thing. Also, what is wrong with one person one vote. Count them up and see who has the most and that person wins. This electoral college stuff doesn't help the process any either.


The United States is not really United. It’s a collection of states, where state laws are paramount. I think the personal identity for a lot of Americans lies in their statehood. Don’t mess with Texas!


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Like the Russian collusion hoax pushed by the media for 4 years? You and sags rode that train every day and never once gave any proof.

I could post evidence and actual videos of voting irregularities but since the regular media that lied about Russian collusion won't cover it I'm not allowed. But you can post misinformation all day long.

I can't post video from mainstream media and C-Span that show one of the candidate being inappropriate with young females. Even though it rally happened and there is recorded evidence. But people can talk about the fake pee dossier without repercussion.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

*"YOU'RE FIRED!!!"







*


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Don't worry, the US still has 2 1/2 months of Trump, even if he loses.

How much do you want to bet they find something to disqualify him before he gets presidential immunity?
They found people to go after Kavanaugh, and that guy was a damn boy scout.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

This reminds me of the term "be careful what you wish for". The left has bought into the "Trump is a crooked racist Nazi" blah blah blah for so long that they have no clue what's in store. The media will go soft on Harris while she takes away rights and implements her socialist/Marxist agenda. By the time they figure it what's really going on it will be too late.

And that was the plan all along. The useful idiots fell for it again.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> That's literally the way politics works. There is some regional redistribution.
> 
> But Canadian politics is basically defined by 3 urban centers, comprisingly about 1/3 of the population.
> 
> Ontario in particular is interesting, look at the electoral map.


There is a similar urban-rural divide in Canada. Urban areas are underrepresented when compared to rural areas, and the Senate has its own representation issues (more for Western provinces). Thankfully, our Senate is not imbued with much power at all, and even still, at least Ontario has 24% of the Senate, and it's not a California situation where 20% of the population has 2% representation.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> This reminds me of the term "be careful what you wish for". The left has bought into the "Trump is a crooked racist Nazi" blah blah blah for so long that they have no clue what's in store. The media will go soft on Harris while she takes away rights and implements her socialist/Marxist agenda. By the time they figure it what's really going on it will be too late.
> 
> And that was the plan all along. The useful idiots fell for it again.


No one forgot all the insanity that was promulgated about Obama. Those FEMA concentration camps never came to pass. You cry wolf too many times, people don't pay attention to you.

Biden & Harris are corporatist centrists.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Don't worry, the US still has 2 1/2 months of Trump, even if he loses.
> 
> How much do you want to bet they find something to disqualify him before he gets presidential immunity?
> They found people to go after Kavanaugh, and that guy was a damn boy scout.


What were they waiting for the last year? Brilliant strategy to wait until after you lose to election to take down your opponent. And even if they do so, it doesn't put Trump in office.

Kavanaugh, all allegations made against him aside, did not acquit himself well and showed himself to be unsuited for the position.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> I could post evidence and actual videos of voting irregularities but since the regular media that lied about Russian collusion won't cover it I'm not allowed. But you can post misinformation all day long.


If even FOX news won't cover it, perhaps it does not withstand journalistic scrutiny.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Like the Russian collusion hoax pushed by the media for 4 years? You and sags rode that train every day and never once gave any proof.
> 
> I could post evidence and actual videos of voting irregularities but since the regular media that lied about Russian collusion won't cover it I'm not allowed. But you can post misinformation all day long.
> 
> I can't post video from mainstream media and C-Span that show one of the candidate being inappropriate with young females. Even though it rally happened and there is recorded evidence. But people can talk about the fake pee dossier without repercussion.


There was enough smoke there to land a handful of Trump associates in prison. We don't know about Trump, as he has immunity while in office.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

THIS JUST IN:
according to trump's own tweets, it's not the Russians this time....it's those mean Poles!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> THIS JUST IN:
> according to trump's own tweets, it's not the Russians this time....it's those mean Poles!
> 
> View attachment 20816


Sorry, your claim that Poland is interfering is completely baseless.
Edit - I realized that this is apparently a real Trump quote, though you didn't link to the source material.

There is the question that some states are not allowing sufficient observers, I think the claims were on PA and NV.
Also there is the question if their procedures comply with the election law.

Lots of sketchy stuff is happening, for instance the debate on postmarking of ballots in PA discussed above.
It's obvious that the interpretation of the law is not in clear agreement.

I think however for now Trump might leave PA alone, since last I checked he was ahead there.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

_^^^^^
"Sorry, your claim that Poland is interfering is completely baseless."_
Yikes.....relax b'y......you DO realize I was doing this for a bit of fun; I wasn't being serious.....
Please tell me that....


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I think however for now Trump might leave PA alone, since last I checked he was ahead there.


The Poland thing was a joke by jargey, though another typo by Trump.

He is ahead, but are still millions of votes to be counted, which is why it hasn't been declared for him.

When Will We Know The Winner? Time Frames For Key States. But given that Biden is leading in Nevada, with the Trump's lead in Georgia and North Carolina weakening, Pennsylvania may not be a factor.

The thing is, if he wants counting to stop now, Biden wins.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> The thing is, if he wants counting to stop now, Biden wins.


 ... unlikely ... watch the crybaby's upcoming tantrums, after the lawsuits, changing locks, etc. at the WH.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... unlikely ... watch the crybaby's upcoming tantrums, after the lawsuits, changing locks, etc. at the WH.


Oh, I know, I'm just saying if people took it at face value.

In reality, he wants them to stop counting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia because he is currently leading, but wants them to continue in Nevada and Arizona because he's losing. If there was any consistency, he would take the position of all or none, but it's obvious that he isn't consistent. Biden's position is pretty clear on continuing to count regardless. Though obviously it's in his favour due to the amount of mail-in votes favouring him. And no, it's not a conspiracy, they spent the campaign emphasizing to vote by mail, whereas Trump spent his campaign emphasizing to vote at the polls.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Oh, I know, I'm just saying if people took it at face value.
> 
> *In reality, he wants them to stop counting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia because he is currently leading,* *but wants them to continue in Nevada and Arizona because he's losing*. If there was any consistency, he would take the position of all or none, but it's obvious that he isn't consistent. Biden's position is pretty clear on continuing to count regardless. Though obviously it's in his favour due to the amount of mail-in votes favouring him. And no, it's not a conspiracy, they spent the campaign emphasizing to vote by mail, whereas Trump spent his campaign emphasizing to vote at the polls.


 ... typical of a cheater's tactics and becoming a con-person next so it's nothing new with the Dump.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

There are several documented cases of voter fraud, but if the very limited "approved" media as selected by the mods isn't reporting on it then I can't provide links.

Facebook and Twitter are also blocking such reports.

Why is everyone so scared?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> There are several documented cases of voter fraud, but if the very limited "approved" media as selected by the mods isn't reporting on it then I can't provide links.
> 
> Facebook and Twitter are also blocking such reports.
> 
> Why is everyone so scared?


Free Speech is the enemy of the authoritarian left.

Why are they allegedly blocking observers? (links provided previously)
Why are postmarks not required to prove the ballots were sent before election day (PA link provided earlier)?

It would be trivial to video and livestream all the counting, then there would be no questions.


Don't worry, if Trump ends up winning, I bet there will be lots of "new" allegations to be made, just it will be the Democrats instead of the Republicans.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

some media sources show Biden currently at 253 EC votes, others have him at 264.
who's right?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> some media sources show Biden currently at 253 EC votes, others have him at 264.
> who's right?


The difference is 11 EC, so that's probably Arizona. Most sources already declared it for Biden as his lead is larger than the outstanding ballots to be counted. It's still close, so that could be why other sources haven't included it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> some media sources show Biden currently at 253 EC votes, others have him at 264.
> who's right?


Both.
They almost always call before they're 100% counted, but using reasonable judgement you can call them a bit earlier.

They generally seem to be waiting until they've got a strong indication before they call it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> some media sources show Biden currently at 253 EC votes, others have him at 264.
> who's right?


They both are. Different news agencies making their predictions. Most states, right now, are pretty much just a prediction. I think they are actually still counting on almost all of them. What you are seeing are the educated predictions by the media. So one media organization has added Arizona to Biden and the other is still waiting to see. Anyway, Biden will take Arizona. So it is 264.

All that is left, that I can see, is Nevada. The others are going to Trump. Nevada is pretty close. If Biden wins Nevada he becomes the next President and if Trump wins Nevada, he continues as President.

I am not sure what all the fuss is about other states unless one thinks they can manipulate a win out of a loss. Oh, OK, that is why.


----------



## dotnet_nerd (Jul 1, 2009)

PA is still undecided. If Biden wins PA, game over, it's a clinch. Trump MUST win here


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Lets see how long the unsubstantiated Pro-Biden claim stays up.


You mean, like 'fake news'? The Biden campaign released their outlook on PA yesterday morning. You can listen to their conference call.

Does this make you feel better?









The Remaining Vote in Pennsylvania Appears to Be Overwhelmingly for Biden (Published 2020)


The president leads by nearly 700,000 votes, but there are 1.4 million absentee votes outstanding.




www.nytimes.com













Mail ballot trends suggest Biden on path to victory in Pa.


Definitive results aren’t expected until at least Thursday in Pennsylvania, but strong trends in mail ballot results are giving Biden’s campaign reason for hope.




whyy.org


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

I think Georgia's still pretty close?
But, as my softball team often says: "We didn't lose, we just ran out of innings."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Did you read the pbs link?



> So far, with about 1.9 million of 2.6 million expected mail ballots counted, Biden has won the vast majority. The exact percentage has varied throughout the day, but on average about 78% of mail ballots have been going to the former vice president, while Trump has been getting about 21%.
> If that trend holds, Trump will pick up about 146,323 more of the still-uncounted mail ballots and Biden will win around 543,487 — enough for the vice president to wipe out Trump’s edge.


Which part are you saying I did not substantiate? That the Biden team is saying they are confident they will win?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The Biden campaign is pretty confident that they will win PA. Apparently 80% of the mail-in vote is going for Biden.


Cool. Any idea why democrats tended to vote with mail in ballots so much more then republican voters?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Cool. Any idea why democrats tended to vote with mail in ballots so much more then republican voters?


From my perspective, Democrats encouraged it and Trump discouraged it. Pretty simple.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> Cool. Any idea why democrats tended to vote with mail in ballots so much more then republican voters?


Democrats tend to believe in Greater numbers that covid is risky and standing in line to vote is riskier then mailing it in.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> Cool. Any idea why democrats tended to vote with mail in ballots so much more then republican voters?


Just for some further information, when the mail-in ballots were requested, they track what party they are registered with, so in Pennsylvania, they sent out 3M ballots: 1.9M registered Democrats, 760k registered Republicans, and 350k as independents or third-party. More than 3M in Pennsylvania apply for mail-in ballots

So, just by going at that ratio alone, you'll see a 2.5:1 ratio in favour of the Democrats over Republicans. But keep in mind that not everyone is going to return their ballot and that just because you are a registered Democrat, you will necessarily vote for Biden. However, it's not really a conspiracy if you just look at the numbers.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Pennsylvania is refusing to follow a court order that allows observers to view the ballot counting. Doors are locked and no one knows what's going on.

Why are they getting away with this? And why is the media silent?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

jargey3000 said:


> I think Georgia's still pretty close?
> But, as my softball team often says: "We didn't lose, we just ran out of innings."


That is exactly what happened to Hillary Clinton in 2016. She ran out of innings. Everyone left the dugout and the park manager turned off the lights.

I remember CNN's John King at the "big board" ( a new toy they had recently set up at the time) and he was saying.......Trump has a big lead in Michigan, but wait until the votes around Detroit come in. He said the same in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other normally "Democratic" States.

They votes for Clinton did start coming in......but Clinton ended up a few votes short. A lot of people thought she would win easily and didn't vote.

This year, the same thing happened with Trump gaining a big early lead, but Biden is enjoying a massive increase in voters in the urban areas.

This year........after 4 years of Trump........people made sure they voted. They lined up for hours, mailed a record number of mail-in ballots, and showed up at the election day polls. Biden has already received the most votes in Presidential history and a lot of votes are still to be counted from California, New York, Washington, etc which Biden has already won by big margins.

If Trump ends up winning this year, his margins of victory will be even less than they were in the 2016 election.

Biden could win the popular vote by 6 million votes or more and still lose.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Pennsylvania is refusing to follow a court order that allows observers to view the ballot counting. Doors are locked and no one knows what's going on.
> 
> Why are they getting away with this? And why is the media silent?


Just overturned








Pennsylvania judge permits campaign observers up-close view of ballot count after Trump complaint







abcnews.go.com





They also got a court order that ballots don't need to be postmarked.
So rooms full of ballots that are being counted, out of sight of observers, but don't worry, they're definately mostly Biden voters.
It's a good thing they're fighting these games.

Just throw up a webcam and stream it,


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Pennsylvania is refusing to follow a court order that allows observers to view the ballot counting. Doors are locked and no one knows what's going on.
> 
> Why are they getting away with this? And why is the media silent?


All of the States have verified Democrat and Republican poll watchers observing the counting. They are lawyers and party representatives. There is NO way they can open the doors to anyone who wants to wander around hassling the poll workers while they are working. The reasons for that should be obvious.

Armed protestors have showed up and tried to barge into the buildings. The police are there and Trump and Fox News need to stop encouraging them.

The legally certified Republican and Democratic lawyers can challenge in court any problems they believe happened, but they have to have evidence.

Some of these people voted first, and their ballots have been waiting to get counted. The idea the SCOTUS will throw them out........is laughable.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Sounds like a contractor I once knew. He told me his pricing was fairly simple. $50 per hour if he does the work himself. $60 per hour if you want to watch. $70 per hour if you want to help.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It should be noted, that the vast majority of Republican politicians are NOT supporting these wild unverified claims.

The ballots are being counted now, only because Republican controlled State legislatures set the rules that they couldn't be counted earlier.

Republicans are complaining about a situation they themselves created.

Trump wanted to appear to be winning early, to make it look good for him in prime time television hours.

Now Trump is calling to stop counting in States he is winning and continue counting in States he is losing. Nice try......but it doesn't work that way.

It also should be noted that the Presidential race isn't the only votes on ballots. People voted on other positions and things.

This is not a surprise. It is exactly what the experts said would happen. It is looking like the polls weren't as far off as people thought either.

All the legal votes must be counted.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Sounds like a contractor I once knew. He told me his pricing was fairly simple. $50 per hour if he does the work himself. $60 per hour if you want to watch. $70 per hour if you want to help.


It's not who votes, it's who counts the votes. - an oft misattributed quote.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Just overturned
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I understand it, there are webcams.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

Looks like there's a really good chance that Biden's going to pass 300 electoral votes with over 4 million votes in general. That's a pretty crushing mandate (too bad they will have a hard time gaining control of the senate come January) We can hope though. 

Maybe Biden should see if Romney wants to come over?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Looks like the best the could do is get a 50-50 tie in the Senate and have Harris live at the Senate to break ties.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

I predict Biden will finish with 308.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> As I understand it, there are webcams.


URL?
Evidence?
Another unsupported claim.

Regarding the CPC, they did livestream it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

potato69 said:


> Looks like there's a really good chance that Biden's going to pass 300 electoral votes with over 4 million votes in general. That's a pretty crushing mandate (too bad they will have a hard time gaining control of the senate come January) We can hope though.
> 
> Maybe Biden should see if Romney wants to come over?


Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Rubio, and others would be able to work with a President Biden, without fear of a backlash from the Trump and his followers.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

potato69 said:


> Looks like there's a really good chance that Biden's going to pass 300 electoral votes with over 4 million votes in general. That's a pretty crushing mandate (too bad they will have a hard time gaining control of the senate come January) We can hope though.
> 
> Maybe Biden should see if Romney wants to come over?


I wouldn't say that's a crushing mandate. Trump did get 304 electoral votes last time around, although he did lose the popular vote. Romney is going to stay Republican as evidenced by how he acted in the past. The only time he broke ranks was for the impeachment. Other than that, he toed the party line.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

andrewf said:


> Does this make you feel better?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I removed a couple posts which looked like speculative claims about the mail-in vote which hasn't been counted yet.

I left the above post intact, as it does link to reliable media sources.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Note: I also processed the reports (complaints) on this thread. I deleted a funny post with media from unapproved sources, and also deleted several messages making speculative claims about the outcome of ballots.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> URL?
> Evidence?
> Another unsupported claim.
> 
> Regarding the CPC, they did livestream it.


I think you will find I am the authority on what I believe. So, your source for what I believe is me.

Now, as to whether there are livestreams of the PA vote count, here you go. I trust you will report your own post speculating that there were no such livestreams.






Petulance isn't going to change the outcome of the election.

ETA: the source for the above claim is my opinion and experience.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Rubio, and others would be able to work with a President Biden, without fear of a backlash from the Trump and his followers.


As long as McConnell controls the Senate agenda, it doesn't matter what those four senators would or would not do.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I thought I should clarify, as I understood the moderation policy, speculation should be acceptable as long as it is not couched as statements of fact.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think you will find I am the authority on what I believe. So, your source for what I believe is me.
> 
> Now, as to whether there are livestreams of the PA vote count, here you go. I trust you will report your own post speculating that there were no such livestreams.
> 
> ...


I'm glad that you can source it.

I never said there "were no such livestreams", please substantiate that claim.

I do believe that livestreams of the entire vote counting process would do a lot to increase the transparency of the vote counting process.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> It would be trivial to video and livestream all the counting, then there would be no questions.


You need to support this claim. If you have hundreds or thousands of people counting, I would argue that it would be a substantial logistical and technical challenge to livestream every single vote being counted. It is a very strong claim to say it would be trivial.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

I will allow this Youtube link of the live ballot counting. I double checked the source of this stream, and it does appear to be authentic.

For links in the future, please continue to stick with the major media outlets listed on the first page of the thread.



andrewf said:


> I thought I should clarify, as I understood the moderation policy, speculation should be acceptable as long as it is not couched as statements of fact.


Correct. Of course people are going to speculate and that's fine. I am watching out for unsubstantiated assertions of fact and especially claims of the outcome, before it's supported by major media outlets.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I'm glad that you can source it.
> 
> I never said there "were no such livestreams", please substantiate that claim.
> 
> I do believe that livestreams of the entire vote counting process would do a lot to increase the transparency of the vote counting process.


In that case, are you asserting that the CPC livestreamed every single vote being counted?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I thought I should clarify, as I understood the moderation policy, speculation should be acceptable as long as it is not couched as statements of fact.


As I understand the moderation policy, statements of belief in contentious facts are also not permitted.

As far as livestreaming, twitch alone has over 100k streams, and peaked at nearly 200k streams.
In my neighbourhood we have thousands of online security cameras.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> In that case, are you asserting that the CPC livestreamed every single vote being counted?


No, I actually think the ballots were machine counted.

I am stating that the CPC did put out public livesteams of the ballot handling. 
I believe that most of the ballot handling was livestreamed.

Secondly I believe that there were minimal concerns raised with the legitimacy of the process by any of the participants. << That's the real goal.

That's what people are missing, it isn't if the votes are counted properly, it's the appearance and confidence in the process.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> As I understand the moderation policy, statements of belief in contentious facts are also not permitted.
> 
> As far as livestreaming, twitch alone has over 100k streams, and peaked at nearly 200k streams.
> In my neighbourhood we have thousands of online security cameras.


So every polling place has to be upgraded with multi-gigabit connections to support livestreams?

Nonsense. Canada has free and fair elections with out them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No, I actually think the ballots were machine counted.
> 
> I am stating that the CPC did put out public livesteams of the ballot handling.
> I believe that most of the ballot handling was livestreamed.
> ...


The problem is, Trump called into question the legitimacy of any outcome that did not result in him winning. The lion's share of blame for any doubt in the outcome lies with him.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> So every polling place has to be upgraded with multi-gigabit connections to support livestreams?
> 
> Nonsense. Canada has free and fair elections with out them.


Canada has a non-partisan agency run elections. Most Canadians trust them and feel they are fair.








Survey of Electors on Communications with Electors – Elections Canada






www.elections.ca





The US elections are run by a number of different groups, with many court challenges, so many of those people are officially partisan.
So if "my side" says "they took the votes to a back room and counted them without letting us watch", I would have concerns.

That simply doesn't happen in Canada today.
That's also why I'm opposed to Online voting.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

I removed a post about the anticipated Nevada outcome. The result is still not known and has not been called by Decision Desks.

To replace that post, here is accurate information about Nevada:








Nevada official says 63,262 ballots remain outstanding in Clark County, as Biden holds narrow lead


With votes still being counted Thursday, Joe Biden had an edge over President Trump with 49.3% of the vote compared to the president's 48.7%.




www.cbsnews.com







> Staff in Clark County are prepared to count 51,000 ballots throughout the day Thursday and results will be reported before 1 p.m. ET Friday, Garcia said. He added that there are more than 60,000 provisional ballots cast during early voting and on Election Day that are outstanding.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

moderator2 said:


> I removed a post about the anticipated Nevada outcome. The result is still not known and has not been called by Decision Desks.
> 
> To replace that post, here is accurate information about Nevada:
> 
> ...


I said "was about to call' which is different. The remaining ballots are 90% in a very heavily democratic riding. Biden's got it.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

One point. The mail-in ballots SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE CLOSE OF POLLS ON POLLING DAY.
PERIOD.
Instead of what seems to be a hodge-podge of cutoffs from state to state.
Why cant this be done? Send them out well in advance & ADVERTISE a postmark date well in advance to give ample ample time to go thru the mails.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

gee, he's a sore loser too.
I'm shocked!


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

just watched the spectacle of his , uh, talk...
nice that at least he managed to thank those 70 million who DID vote for him...
oh wait.....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

NYT reporting that Trump's lead in GA down to <4000 votes... This one sure is going to result in a recount.









Presidential Election Results: Biden Wins (Published 2020)


Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected the 46th president of the United States. See full results and maps from the 2020 presidential election.



www.nytimes.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Like I have said all along the Trump Presidency, he was systematically destroying his own support, one brick at a time.

You can't call military veterans and heroes like the late Senator John McCain a loser and defame his legacy and not lose votes in Arizona.

You can't mock disabled people and not lose votes from disabled people.

You can't mock black people getting killed by police and not lose votes from black people.

You can't mock people wearing masks, while their friends and family are dying from COVID and not lose votes.

I remember during Harper's last term and his administration was attacking Syrian refugees, military veterans, and unemployment recipients.

When a politician behaves like listed above, one day they look around and there their supporters are............gone.

I guess it is true......power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For some reason......they just don't see it coming.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Biden continues to cut down the Trump margin. To use Jargey's baseball comparison.......will he run out of innings ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hey Jargey........in 1980 our team won the Canadian Slo-Pitch Championship in Moncton, New Brunswick. Wow......40 years ago.

I just gave the championship jacket to my grandson last year. Never wore it...........LOL.





__





Past Champions







softball.ca


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> One point. The mail-in ballots SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE CLOSE OF POLLS ON POLLING DAY.
> PERIOD.
> Instead of what seems to be a hodge-podge of cutoffs from state to state.
> Why cant this be done? Send them out well in advance & ADVERTISE a postmark date well in advance to give ample ample time to go thru the mails.


Each state has their own laws, some which are being followed, and some which are not.
That's the point, and that's what's delegitimizing the process.
When the text of the law says one thing, and they do something else.

I'm darn glad Trump put literate people on SCOTUS.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

sags said:


> Hey Jargey........in 1980 our team won the Canadian Slo-Pitch Championship in Moncton, New Brunswick. Wow......40 years ago.
> 
> I just gave the championship jacket to my grandson last year. Never wore it...........LOL.
> 
> ...


the London Wacky Websters?? lol
was there much wacky-backy on the go??


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

sags said:


> Hey Jargey........in 1980 our team won the Canadian Slo-Pitch Championship in Moncton, New Brunswick. Wow......40 years ago.


From Moncton too ?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

^^^^ No, I think the 1980 tourney was in moncton. the wackys were from London


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

here's a thought
"John King in '24!" ( he's great with numbers!)


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Sleepy Joe just pulled ahead in PA!
In the words of Howard Cosell: "Its ovah! Its all ovah!"

Hey sags...looks like Joe had a walk-off in bottom of the 9th, in Georgia!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Georgia is headed for a recount. I wouldn't say it's decided either, there are thousands of overseas ballots out there that might be more republican than Dem.

(Link removed by moderator; as stated in thread rules, only specific media sources allowed)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> Sleepy Joe just pulled ahead in PA!
> In the words of Howard Cosell: "Its ovah! Its all ovah!"
> 
> Hey sags...looks like Joe had a walk-off in bottom of the 9th, in Georgia!


Just wait till the court battles.
There are some questionable legal rulings on what a valid ballot is in PA. These were referenced above.

Specifically *if* the text of the PA law says the ballot must be postmarked the day before the election to be valid. (link above)
The court ruling that unpostmarked ballots can be accepted could be overturned. (link above)

If they co-mingled the ballots, that could cause any number of ballots to be thrown out, which could be a partisan decision.

Unless Biden wins without PA, we're in for a rough ride.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Deicision Desk HQ calls PA for Biden and thus calls the election for Biden with 273 EC votes.

(Link removed by moderator; as stated in thread rules, only specific media sources allowed)

If Biden wins NV and AZ, PA is not needed for him to be elected. I think there might be a comfortable enough EC lead that any one or two states won't overturn the result (unlike 2000). I'm not sure Trump will ever concede, but it looks like it's over.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

jargey3000 said:


> the London Wacky Websters?? lol
> was there much wacky-backy on the go??


LOL......it was a very popular local furniture store and the older aged owners loved baseball and our team. They paid all expenses for us to stay in Moncton for the tournament.

I saved the jacket for my son and never wore it. When he was a teen, I dragged it out and said......look what I saved for you. He saw it and said "Wacky Websters"........no thanks, dad.

I gave it to my grandson. I haven't seen it wear it yet and he is getting too big. Kids these days......meh !

Joe Biden.......reminds me of Kirk Gibson hobbling to the plate and hitting it out of the park with one arm for the championship.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Deicision Desk HQ calls PA for Biden and thus calls the election for Biden with 273 EC votes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I just hope President Harris doesn't [email protected]#$ things up too bad.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Deicision Desk HQ calls PA for Biden and thus calls the election for Biden with 273 EC votes.
> 
> (Link removed by moderator; as stated in thread rules, only specific media sources allowed)
> 
> If Biden wins NV and AZ, PA is not needed for him to be elected. I think there might be a comfortable enough EC lead that any one or two states won't overturn the result (unlike 2000). I'm not sure Trump will ever concede, but it looks like it's over.


I wouldn't say that it's really official. Given the close margin, there's going to be an automatic recount, so it will be some time yet.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Apologies for modifying posts, but please stick to list of approved media sources for the purpose of election results.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

bgc_fan said:


> I wouldn't say that it's really official. Given the close margin, there's going to be an automatic recount, so it will be some time yet.


Correct. The results are NOT official yet. The election has NOT been called by the major US networks yet.

A warning to all, only post election results using these specific media sources and I will remove other posts that link elsewhere.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some are saying that IF Biden wins, the Republican Senate (not a done deal yet) will hold him back by refusing to confirm appointments or legislation.

I think they forget that Trump made executive orders and "acting" cabinet ministers a normal thing.

Rest assured that IF Biden is elected he will reverse much of what Trump has done in short order.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

To be clear: Biden does have the lead at the moment, both in Georgia and Pennsylvania. If things continue in this direction, he will win -- but the result has not yet been called.









Home - BBC News


Visit BBC News for up-to-the-minute news, breaking news, video, audio and feature stories. BBC News provides trusted World and UK news as well as local and regional perspectives. Also entertainment, business, science, technology and health news.




www.bbc.com


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

sags said:


> Some are saying that IF Biden wins, the Republican Senate (not a done deal yet) will hold him back by refusing to confirm appointments or legislation.
> 
> I think they forget that Trump made executive orders and "acting" cabinet ministers a normal thing.
> 
> Rest assured that IF Biden is elected he will reverse much of what Trump has done in short order.


In other words, a repeat of the Obama years. In 2 years there'll be another election, and perhaps an attempt for the Democrats to retake the Senate.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Additional note: Decision Desk HQ, which is one election-tracking organization, has decided to call the election result. You can go to their web site if you are interested in their analysis.

As of 09:00, this differs from all of the other major media networks decision desks. The Associated Press, CBS, NBC, Fox News, etc have not come to the same conclusion. Nearly all reputable broadcasters, including the CBC and BBC, go by the consensus of the major US media networks.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> In other words, a repeat of the Obama years. In 2 years there'll be another election, and perhaps an attempt for the Democrats to retake the Senate.


Or a chance to see how bad Harris is, and move further red.
Often midterms go against the presidents party.

Also the results aren't done yet, there will be recounts, and lawsuits.

At least it's really narrow in the Senate and House, no matter who wins, they'll likely have to seriously moderate their policies to get anything done, which is a good thing.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, I just hope *President Harris* doesn't [email protected]#$ things up too bad.


 ... wow, a real nervous xenophobe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> I wouldn't say that it's really official. Given the close margin, there's going to be an automatic recount, so it will be some time yet.


Well, none of the results are official until the states certify the results, but that will take weeks.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

moderator2 said:


> To be clear: Biden does have the lead at the moment, both in Georgia and Pennsylvania. If things continue in this direction, he will win -- but the result has not yet been called.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Major media calls are usually what are used. 'Official' results take weeks and really are only official once the EC convenes and actually elects the President in December.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Or a chance to see how bad Harris is, and move further red.
> Often midterms go against the presidents party.
> 
> Also the results aren't done yet, there will be recounts, and lawsuits.
> ...


Not sure why you think Harris is a scary commie. She is a corporatist chameleon. She may have articulated some left-wing ideas during the primary but that was tactical and not ideological.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

andrewf said:


> Major media calls are usually what are used. 'Official' results take weeks and really are only official once the EC convenes and actually elects the President in December.


Right, the call of the major media outlets is what, traditionally, is reported as the outcome.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At best.......a few votes may be in question and discounted. In the past it has involved a few hundred votes at the most.

IF the current trend continues, Biden would win many States and have 306 electoral votes. All those votes aren't going to all be overturned.

Trump is tweeting conspiracy theories as his "evidence" of corruption. Courts aren't going to listen to that nonsense.

It should also be noted that in some States any "recount:" costs are paid for the Party that requests them.

Depending on the final outcome, the Republican Party may not want to spend their money if they have no chance of winning.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

sags said:


> IF the current trend continues, Biden would win many States and have 306 electoral votes. All those votes aren't going to all be overturned.


It does seem likely Biden will win. However, the counts are extremely close in several states and this is why the media networks are being extremely cautious about announcing a result.

Georgia is just 1,000 apart and could change
Pennsylvania is 6,800 apart and could change
Nevada is 11,000 apart (solid Biden lead) but has only reported 84% of polls

So these results can still change. I'm not talking about a re-count ... traditionally those apparently only change results by a few hundred votes at most, so the *re-count or disputed ballots is not the issue*.

The issue is that these are very tight races currently. Once a few more votes are counted, the calls can be made. Updated counts typically come in every half our or so, and it may only be a matter of hours before decision desks can "call" the election.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is also interesting that some down ballot Republicans did very well in States where the President didn't. 

How do you argue "fraud" with those kinds of results ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Not sure why you think Harris is a scary commie. She is a corporatist chameleon. She may have articulated some left-wing ideas during the primary but that was tactical and not ideological.


Not sure why you think I think Harris is a scary commie.
I think she's an opportunist with no values, that's what makes her really scary.

Also even the Democrats didn't want her to be President.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree that it isn't over yet and the networks are being cautious, and that is why I capitalize IF Biden wins.

It could still go either way, but the path is getting more difficult for Trump with every vote dump. Consider that Trump started with 680,000 vote lead in Pennsylvania and that lead has been knocked down every time there are more votes counted since then. Biden now leads and his lead is expanding. Biden is winning 87% of the latest votes coming in. It is almost inconceivable that the trend is going to suddenly turn and Trump will start winning 80% of the votes in heavily Democratic areas.

But it "could" happen. I have no idea what the Vegas odds would be on it though.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would also point out that the Biden campaign have been dead on with their statistics.

They know a lot more than the news media exactly what vote is remaining and where it is.....down to the person or zip code.

Those people are the best of the best.......in the world of statistical modelling.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I think she's an opportunist with no values, that's what makes her really scary.


You'd think Republicans would be quite content with that after 4 years of Trump. What values do you think he espouses, other than his own aggrandizement?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In the "lame duck" session, the incoming President - elect will receive top level security briefs and the transition of power happens in the government.

The incoming President must be totally "ready" on Day 1 after the official Inauguration swearing into office.

It is reported that Biden is already meeting with his economic, national security, and foreign affairs advisors.

It is also reported that Biden is also accumulating a list of his cabinet appointments.

There is some comfort that IF Biden wins the election........IF he wins......he will have knowledge of everything Trump is doing as the lame duck President.

That is a very important part of any transition of power. If anything strange is going on.......the public can be informed and appropriate action taken.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You'd think Republicans would be quite content with that after 4 years of Trump. What values do you think he espouses, other than his own aggrandizement?


He has a rather simplistic America First policy.
A lot of it shortsighted and even counterproductive, but it's pretty clear to many what it is.
Some things right, some things wrong, but far better than I thought he'd be.

Also some of the opposition is just silly, stopping people from illegally entering the country should be a no brainer non-partisan issue.

I think you have to be quite an arrogant narcissist to want to be President in the first case.
I actually think most overly ambitious politicians are in it for their ego.

That being said, having taken over as a manager, there are many, who also think they can simply do a better job.

It's quite possible that Trump is both an arrogant self centered jerk, and a well intentioned man who happened to think he was best able to get in and do some good for the country.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Major media calls are usually what are used. 'Official' results take weeks and really are only official once the EC convenes and actually elects the President in December.


Usually they call it if the lead is larger than the remaining ballots, but given how small the lead is and the amount of ballots to be counted, it is something that shouldn't be called. Arizona is an example, it was called early by Fox, but then there were more ballots "found", so other media outlets held back on calling it.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> He has a rather simplistic America First policy.
> A lot of it shortsighted and even counterproductive, but it's pretty clear to many what it is.
> Some things right, some things wrong, but far better than I thought he'd be.
> 
> ...


 ... he had 4 years for the well-intentions (questionable and for whom?) and he blew it.



> That being said, having taken over as a manager, *there are many, who also think they can simply do a better job.*


 ... isn't competition for the job considered normal? 

I don't think anybody in a corporation is not indispensible, including the CEO (unless he/she happens to "own" the company).


----------



## dotnet_nerd (Jul 1, 2009)

In professional chess, it’s rare to actually see a checkmate. When you know you’ve lost you tip over your king and shake hands with your opponent. It’s the honorable thing to do. 

Trump is a disgrace. Leave with some trace of dignity. 

-Thank your supporters
- Respect the people’s wishes 
-Congratulate your opponent


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... he had 4 years for the well-intentions (questionable and for whom?) and he blew it.


He did better than most expected.

He even made progress in the middle east. I don't think anyone expected that.








Five reasons why Israel's peace deals with the UAE and Bahrain matter


Gulf states see opportunities for trade while Israel lessens its isolation, writes Jeremy Bowen.



www.bbc.com


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

sags said:


> LOL......it was a very popular local furniture store and the older aged owners loved baseball and our team. They paid all expenses for us to stay in Moncton for the tournament.
> 
> I saved the jacket for my son and never wore it. When he was a teen, I dragged it out and said......look what I saved for you. He saw it and said "Wacky Websters"........no thanks, dad.
> 
> ...


LOL
I just recently tossed my 1979 "Inter-City Champs" jacket. It was one of those jobbies with a green felt fronts, with the white leather (or vinyl) sleeves! The Seven-Ups, sponsored by the local Pepsi bottler lol.
I think Joe cud do a pretty good Gibby "arm pump" imitation! hahaha


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

dotnet_nerd said:


> In professional chess, it’s rare to actually see a checkmate. When you know you’ve lost you tip over your king and shake hands with your opponent. It’s the honorable thing to do.
> 
> Trump is a disgrace. Leave with some trace of dignity.
> 
> ...


Like Gore did?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

dotnet_nerd said:


> In professional chess, it’s rare to actually see a checkmate. When you know you’ve lost you tip over your king and shake hands with your opponent. It’s the honorable thing to do.
> 
> Trump is a disgrace. Leave with some trace of dignity.
> 
> ...


nobody but nobody should be surprised by the way he's reacting though,..."ME,ME,ME,ME,ME,ME"


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> He did better than most expected.


 ... rephrase that to "he could have done (much much) better than most expected." If you don't agree with the re-phrasing, define the "most".



> He even made progress in the middle east. I don't think anyone expected that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... not going to elaborate .. the so-called "progress" there was all for self-interests.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> nobody but nobody should be surprised by the way he's reacting though,..."ME,ME,ME,ME,ME,ME"


 ... WAAAH, WAAAH, WAAAH ... god, watch the twits coming.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... rephrase that to "he could have done (much much) better than most expected." If you don't agree with the re-phrasing, define the "most".
> 
> ... not going to elaborate .. the so-called "progress" there was all for self-interests.


Well to be fair, I have very very low expectations for Biden/Harris.

If they manage to do anything to protect free speech, or even try to reduce racism I'd be absolutely stunned.

I fully expect that Biden/Harris will actually try to implement systematically racist policies across multiple federal agencies.








‘This Is About Justice’: Biden Ties Economic Revival to Racial Equity (Published 2020)


In the last of four proposals laying out his vision for economic recovery, Joseph R. Biden Jr. pledged to lift up minority-owned businesses and to award them more federal contracts.




www.nytimes.com




_The plan Mr. Biden unveiled touched on a wide range of economic issues. It emphasizes support for small-business owners of color, promising that he will “leverage more than $150 billion in new capital and opportunities for small businesses that have been structurally excluded for generations,” including by increasing access to venture capital and low-interest business loans._

If he repeals more racist laws, regulations, programs than he implements, I'll be very happily surprised.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> Usually they call it if the lead is larger than the remaining ballots, but given how small the lead is and the amount of ballots to be counted, it is something that shouldn't be called. Arizona is an example, it was called early by Fox, but then there were more ballots "found", so other media outlets held back on calling it.


Many states are called when the counting has barely begun, based on projections extrapolated from what has already been counted. California is still only at 77% counted, but was called on election night.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Like Gore did?


Gore faced enormous pressure to concede even though, as it turns out, he likely would have won the recount.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Many states are called when the counting has barely begun, based on projections extrapolated from what has already been counted. California is still only at 77% counted, but was called on election night.


Actually, I remember California being called at 0%, or almost immediately after the polls closed, it could be that they had already counted mail-in votes. But yeah, they can estimate based on probable voting split of the mail-in ballots. However, given the closeness of the lead margin, I can see why most would be hesitant to call it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Still not called by the networks ! 

The trend is pretty clear. It almost looks like no network wants to be the one to set off the fireworks. 

The COVID cases per 100K map is glowing bright red across the entire US, while Trump is sitting in his bedroom tweeting. 

Trump's cabinet and WH advisors are already looking for new jobs. Nothing is getting done, except for Biden meeting with an array of experts and advisors.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Hmm... QAnon supporters trying to deliver fake ballots. Kind of expected when you feed the narrative that there are fake ballots being accepted. Wonder if anyone is going to guess who these ballots would be for?








Armed men arrested in Philadelphia may have believed fake ballots were being counted, Philadelphia DA Office says


Two armed Virginia men who were arrested Thursday outside the Philadelphia Convention Center may have believed fake ballots were being counted there, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Jane Roh told CNN.




www.cnn.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL.........that is some major level of stupid.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Trump's cabinet and WH advisors are already looking for new jobs. Nothing is getting done, except for Biden meeting with an array of experts and advisors.


Assuming the cake has been baked, what next?

Presumably Trump can still grant pardons? Who would get those? 
And can he include himself? 
If not, perhaps his lawyers should be working on his post presidency defense?
Maybe more productive than litigating election results that likely can't be changed enough to allow him to win anyway?
Or maybe he will make a deal?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Here is a horrible thought that comes in the form of a question.

If/when Donald Trump loses the 2020 election, would he still be eligible to run for President in 2024?


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

OptsyEagle said:


> Here is a horrible thought that comes in the form of a question.
> 
> If/when Donald Trump loses the 2020 election, would he still be eligible to run for President in 2024?


He will probably be in jail (no news source, just opinion). But I'd like to know too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, Trump could run in 2024. A President can "serve" 2 terms. They don't have to be back to back.

It might not be a bad idea to hold out the thought of that to him, to get him focused on something besides losing. 

He got 70 million votes......so he has a lot of support to build another run.

It would be a nightmare situation for the Republican Party, but Trump controls the Republican Party now. They did it to themselves.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> If/when Donald Trump loses the 2020 election, would he still be eligible to run for President in 2024?





fstamand said:


> He will probably be in jail (no news source, just opinion). But I'd like to know too.


He will be eligible because he hasn't served 2 terms. 
Bonus answer: even if he is convicted AND in jail, he can still run for President because these are the only criteria:

Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
Be at least 35 years old
Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

So, as one of the quirks of the US, is that you can be President as a convicted felon, but you can't vote in the elections.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump can grant pardons until January 20, 2021. All Presidents do that. 

They can only pardon for Federal crimes, so anyone facing State charges is out of luck.

I don't think he can pardon himself, but he could resign and VP Mike Pence could take over the Presidency and then pardon him.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump could resign and Pence could be President for a month or so.

Wouldn't that be cool ? I would love to be President for a month. I wouldn't leave the White House that much...just take top level briefings, grant some pardons, take some rides in the helicopter and tour Air Force One. I would visit Area 51 in Roswell to see what is going on there. Maybe speed dial a bunch of world leaders to shoot the breeze.

Heck..........I would even invite CMF members to come for a nice dinner and weekend in the White House !


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

haha ^
I'm more questioning the amount of damage Trump can do before Jan 20.
I'm curious to know if a president has limited power in between when he concedes and when he leaves ?


----------



## dotnet_nerd (Jul 1, 2009)

CNN just called it, game over for the Orange Disaster


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Yes, Trump could run in 2024. A President can "serve" 2 terms. They don't have to be back to back.
> 
> It might not be a bad idea to hold out the thought of that to him, to get him focused on something besides losing.
> 
> ...


The only reason I ask is that now that we know that he could run again in 2024, not only does Biden have to beat him now but he also has to be fairly well liked in 2024 to ensure that he can beat him again. 

Whatever we want to say about Donald Trump he convinced 70 million Americans to vote for him. That will not go unnoticed by the Republican party as it did not go unnoticed by me. Most serving Republican presidents, in the entire history of the USA, did not get that many votes.

So I am just saying, he may not actually go away even if he leaves the White House in January.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Down goes Trump!


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

True. 70M did vote for Trump. But why did they vote that way?
Or was it a case of "I'll vote for anyone other than Biden"? 
I suspect that most voted for Trump becuase they predict that Harris will replace Biden within the comign 4 years - so they saw Harris as the name on the DEM ticket - and they simply voted Republican as a protest against Biden/Harris. It's a plausible hypothesis.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

dubmac said:


> True. 70M did vote for Trump. But why did they vote that way?


 ... the answer to your not-so-much as a "hypothesis" lies in your 3rd paragraph.



> Or was it a case of "I'll vote for anyone other than Biden"?


 ... who is that "anyone" anyways? The other choice is status quo or still the Dump.



> I suspect that most voted for Trump becuase they predict that Harris will replace Biden within the comign 4 years - so they saw Harris as the name on the DEM ticket - and they simply voted Republican as a protest against Biden/Harris. It's a plausible hypothesis.


 ... and why is it that Dump voters are so so so afraid of Harris when they haven't even given Biden a chance to be their president?

Seems like the typical "I can't stand the colour-of-her-skin plus her gender" mindset of Dump voters at work here.

I would be interested to see how many Dump voters are going to follow their Messiah in jumping off the cliff now with that EPIC loss of 214 versus Biden's 290 electoral votes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> The only reason I ask is that now that we know that *he could run again in 2024,* not only does Biden have to beat him now but he also has to be fairly well liked in 2024 to ensure that he can beat him again.
> 
> *Whatever we want to say about Donald Trump he convinced 70 million Americans to vote for him. * That will not go unnoticed by the Republican party as it did not go unnoticed by me. Most serving Republican presidents, in the entire history of the USA, did not get that many votes.


 ... and yes, his "loyal" and "faithful" supporters and voters alike can also pay for his upcoming 6 digits plus debts in 2021.

.. I wonder who is going to pay for the Dump lawsuits to get the votes recounted and implementation of his squatting strategy ... surely, those monies can't be coming out of his own pocket.



> So I am just saying, he may not actually go away even if he leaves the White House in January.


... no he won't unless they shut down his Twitts account.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL.........Trump announced a press conference at a small dumpy looking landscaping company building. Then he went golfing. Then the tweets were removed.

He hasn't congratulated Biden yet. Maybe nobody with him on the golf course wants to tell him it is over.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Beaver. I'm not sure why 70M voted for Trump - just making a few suppositions is all.
I saw Katie Simpson (CBC) interviewing a Trump supporter about 20-30 min ago. When asked about how the US would be able to overcome the division within the country, the Trump supporter said "the US faces a real lack of morals, and a moral crisis" referring to anti-abortion. and that the US needs to puts morals first, and avoid becoming a secular nation. 
This is where I can't help but shoe-gaze. I don't think that Trump has any real moral compass - at all - based on his past performance especially since Feb 2020. My wife suggested that the whole anti-abortion thing smecks of the need for the state to control women. The conservative-right (republican) agenda just seems so intractable.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

There we go ... consensus from ALL major media. They now give the same projection and have called it: Biden elected as president


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

dubmac said:


> Beaver. I'm not sure why 70M voted for Trump - just making a few suppositions is all.


 ... which is fine. And I'm providing my opinion.



> I saw Katie Simpson (CBC) interviewing a Trump supporter about 20-30 min ago. When asked about how the US would be able to overcome the division within the country, the Trump supporter said "the US faces a real lack of morals, and a moral crisis" referring to anti-abortion. and that the US needs to puts morals first, and avoid becoming a secular nation.


 ... I don't disagree with the lack of morals in the US (and any country/society at large these days). But to use "anti-abortion" as having a lack of moral and as a cause to the country's "division" is weak.

Just as a typical Dump supporter asked as to why she would vote for him:

"_I don't think it is Trump's fault for the pandemic. That's why I voted for him."_

My question to the Trump voter is does she not realize he represents the "United States of America", "a country", representative of all Americans. And that his "job" first and foremost is to "run" it and run it properly ...and what does he do? Spends most of his time on Twitter ranting on stupid issues, and attacking innocent Americans ... examples: "prior" president, country's infectious disease expert Dr. A. Fauci ... on and on and on. Really sickening.



> This is where I can't help but shoe-gaze. I don't think that Trump has any real moral compass - at all - based on his past performance especially since Feb 2020. My wife suggested that the whole anti-abortion thing smecks of the need for the state to control women.* The conservative-right (republican) agenda just seems so intractable.*


 ... well, that's the usual "conservative-right" operating agenda to make up for 1. not knowing what to do, and 2. when figured out what to do, not doing it properly.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Why do so many people vote Trump?

I used to ask the same thing before I started living in the US. But living there showed me the reason: the US is a very right-wing country, far more "right" and "conservative" than Canada, Europe, and every other country we have close ties to such as Australia & New Zealand.

The US is also highly religious and many people, including many Latinos, are opposed to abortion.

So you shouldn't wonder why the Republicans and right-wing media are so powerful south of the border. The US _is_ a very conservative, right-wing country. Of course they would vote Trump given these options. *It is an honest reflection of their values and they have the right to vote according to their values.*

Note, however, that right wing Americans are a minority. Democrats won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections going back to 1992.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

dubmac said:


> True. 70M did vote for Trump. But why did they vote that way?
> Or was it a case of "I'll vote for anyone other than Biden"?
> I suspect that most voted for Trump becuase they predict that Harris will replace Biden within the comign 4 years - so they saw Harris as the name on the DEM ticket - and they simply voted Republican as a protest against Biden/Harris. It's a plausible hypothesis.


Some of it was clearly the anti-Biden vote, just as lots of the Biden vote was Anti-Trump.

That being said there Trump has a few things.
1. He's a fighter. You know he'll push his agenda hard.
2. He put forward policies that address concerns of some voters.

Protectionism
The Wall
3. He's not racist.
4. He's not a socialist.
5. In his first term he wasn't the full scale disaster people existed. He was basically a mid-sized disaster, who happened to be extremely embarrasing.

How does this translate into votes
1. is an asset if he's on the right track.
2. Some good some bad, but his positions are clear. 
3 & 4, lots of people will not accept a racist or a socialist as the President.
5. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. At this point Trump is a known quantity. President Biden/Harris... who knows what they're going to do.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Take @MrMatt as one of our forum examples. He's a rational and sensible guy, very coherent. He clearly has highly conservative values, for example believes that socialists and communists are going to destroy society and he thinks that only a "sociopath" would support socialist & communist agendas.
> 
> Someone like MrMatt votes for Trump because he believes in the Republican agenda of stopping those dangerous socialists and communists. Even if Trump is a monster, there is no way MrMatt and his ilk would vote for a Democrat who they believe is about to destroy America with their socialism.


In short yes, I would not vote for a person who wants to destroy my country (Canada), or if I was American -America.

As for where I align in values I'd suggest I'm not "highly conservative"

Well I'm more a Liberal by the wikipedia definition. Liberalism - Wikipedia
*Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

I have some Conservative values, however I strongly oppose what some consider "conservative values", some of those positions are problematic.
Going leftward, I have concerns as things move past Social liberalism, Social liberalism - Wikipedia, I think they become problematic.

As someone who fits the textbook definition of Liberalism, I think it's interesting that I often get lumped as very right wing.


----------



## Benting (Dec 21, 2016)

One of the reason : Biden's age and potencial of a female black/Asian Harris becomes President. To some people down south, it is a no no.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Benting said:


> One of the reason : Biden's age and potencial of a female black/Asian Harris becomes President. To some people down south, it is a no no.


While there is some merit to that claim, I don't think that was a huge factor.

Look at the electoral maps over the last few decades.
Care to explain which State voted Trump because Harris is Black?
The map looks like the Gore/Bush map, except a bit more Blue
Did everyone suddenly become racist once Obama stopped running?


To be clear, some people voted against Harris and Obama because they are black.
But some people also voted for Harris and Obama because they are black.
Both those "reasons" are racist.

Similarly some people voted for Hilary because she was a women, just like some people voted against Hilary because she is a woman.

I actually think to focus on fringe racism is a lazy political exercise that distracts from the real issues.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> While there is some merit to that claim, I don't think that was a huge factor.
> 
> Look at the electoral maps over the last few decades.
> Care to explain which State voted Trump because Harris is Black?
> ...


Having people in power who are not representative to your live experience and a black man or a woman is a real issue for very many people. Let me guess, you're a white man? How can we tell?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Perhaps the country is too large and too diverse to remain whole. Similar to Canada. Im not sure if there are two countries whose size and diversity can be matched anywhere in the world. Poses problems for governing with such competing (and valid) issues. 

there was a show on “political dating” show on TV in the past few years. Forget what it was called. They would pair up political opposites on “blind dates” to learn about each other and their regions. Bonnie Crombie, mayor of Mississauga, and Andrew Scheer went on a “date”. They were both pretty shocked at how different life Is, and how different priorities existed between Mississauga and Saskatchewan. Scheer was shocked at the price of homes and Crombie was shocked at the plight of farmers. Most Canadians cant fathom what life is like in other Canadian regions (Martimes, Praries, Ontario etc). 

Getting any real policies enacted in the US seems difficult. A new president has 18 months, tips, to get something done. Then it’s mid-term elections, then you’re running again. (From the West Wing.  )


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

potato69 said:


> Having people in power who are not representative to your live experience and a black man or a woman is a real issue for very many people. Let me guess, you're a white man? How can we tell?


Well I don't think that
Justin Trudeau, Erin OToole, Jagmeet Singh, Biden, Trump, Harris, or Pence are "representative of my life experience".

Nor do I think my current mayor, MP or MPP, current or Previous Premier either (FYI, I'm not a rich fat man, nor an elderly lesbian).

Do you think any of those people "represent" anyones "life experience"?

This idea that because they share some physical characteristic, like race or sex, somehow makes them "better" at their job is racist and sexist and silly.
Sure it's possible that they may have some sliver of their life in common with mine, but quite honestly that's the LEAST important characteristic to me.

what I want from "people in power" 
1. Be fair to everyone, irrespective of their similarities or differences to you.
2. Listen and understand that everyone has a different lived experience.
3. Use as little of that power as possible.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Perhaps the country is too large and too diverse to remain whole. Similar to Canada. Im not sure if there are two countries whose size and diversity can be matched anywhere in the world. Poses problems for governing with such competing (and valid) issues.
> 
> there was a show on “political dating” show on TV in the past few years. Forget what it was called. They would pair up political opposites on “blind dates” to learn about each other and their regions. Bonnie Crombie, mayor of Mississauga, and Andrew Scheer went on a “date”. They were both pretty shocked at how different life Is, and how different priorities existed between Mississauga and Saskatchewan. Scheer was shocked at the price of homes and Crombie was shocked at the plight of farmers. Most Canadians cant fathom what life is like in other Canadian regions (Martimes, Praries, Ontario etc).
> 
> Getting any real policies enacted in the US seems difficult. A new president has 18 months, tips, to get something done. Then it’s mid-term elections, then you’re running again. (From the West Wing.  )


That's why the federal government, and governments in general, should do as little as possible.
Let the people closest to the problem decide how to handle that.
Better the nation than the UN. The province than the nation, the region than the province, the city than the region, the ward than the city, the family than the ward, the individual than the family.
If the problem is too big, work it backwards, but first make sure the problem is too big.

It's silly that the nation is so willing to interfere with the actions of the individual, it's simply impossible for any number of people, far away in Ottawa, to know what's best for each and every citizen.

FYI, those are textbook "Liberal" values.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> In short yes, I would not vote for a person who wants to destroy my country (Canada), or if I was American -America.
> 
> As for where I align in values I'd suggest I'm not "highly conservative"
> 
> ...


You might notice I did actually edit my comment and remove these statements about you (a couple mins after posting that), because you did make a good point in the past that I should not lump you in with broad definitions. And you pointed out here that yes, you do have many liberal values.

It can be problematic to oversimplify values into liberal vs conservative ... which unfortunately is what Americans like to do, encouraged by their media.

In the case of Trump, though, I think much of the support has to do with specific issues. I believe that Trump attracted the votes of people who are: pro-gun, anti-abortion, religious ... who generally dislike the government, dislike immigrants, and don't see the value of paying taxes. Not sure if it's right to call that "liberal" or "conservative" but I think he attracted people with a mix of specific issues.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is foolish to believe there is any "common ground" to be found on a number of big issues.

Where would be common ground on abortion rights ? Where would it be on climate change ? Where is it on a universal basic income or taxes ?

All levels of government "impose" their view on anyone who doesn't agree with them. There is no magic solution that will satisfy everyone.

So, you have one political side who get elected and impose their will on the other side, and then after a few years their roles reverse.

That is how democracy works in reality. The key to incremental success for a political party is to make changes the other side can't easily reverse.

The Liberals did an excellent job of shielding against easy reversal on......... raising child care benefits, legalizing marijuana, restructuring CPP.

Other changes the Liberals have made may be more easily reversed by the Conservatives should they win, like increasing the age for OAS back to 67.

The Harper government were successful doing it with the TFSA, which the Liberals only dared to marginally control.

The Conservatives spend too much of their time trying to claw back Liberal gains, instead of instituting their own programs the Liberals don't dare touch.

The Liberals are simply better at playing the game.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Well I don't think that
> Justin Trudeau, Erin OToole, Jagmeet Singh, Biden, Trump, Harris, or Pence are "representative of my life experience".
> 
> Nor do I think my current mayor, MP or MPP, current or Previous Premier either (FYI, I'm not a rich fat man, nor an elderly lesbian).
> ...


The role of privilege that many white men benefit from without even knowing? Yes i do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An interesting example of implemental success was discussed today by Karl Rove, former senior advisor to George W. Bush.

When Bush was President he became aware of and was frustrated by the time it took for a vaccine to be produced in mass quantities.

He was told the problem was the vaccine had to be grown in tens of millions of chicken eggs. He asked scientists what they needed to speed up the process.

They said it may be possible to genetically engineer the vaccine if they had the funds to research and develop it that way.

Bush provided billions of dollars in support of that research and development.

When Barrack Obama was elected, he asked Bush for a favor of delaying the conclusion of a specific program. 

Bush agreed to delay the conclusion of the program for a few months.

Among the obvious reasons and due to mutual respect, Obama continued to fund Bush's program into genetically engineering of vaccines.

Then Trump was elected.

He wasn't much interested in science and cut funding to a lot of research, but the program was well underway in private companies by then.

So the "record speed" of production of a possible COVID virus is directly attributed to Bush and Obama. It was incrementally moved along.

Trump established "Operation Warp Speed" which is the military distribution of the vaccine.

There is no indication or proof of how well that system is set up yet, but it may soon be put to the test.

But if successfully deployed, Trump should get credit for that part of the distribution of a possible vaccine.

If a vaccine is successfully created and distributed, Biden will inherit all that was done before him.

He will get accolades for the results of the incremental change that started 20 years before.....and now you know the rest of the story.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Do you think there really is a "Book of Secrets" passed from one President to the next ?

(I think it is an interesting concept to have a single book with handwritten observations of their times from Washington to Trump, but is likely a myth.)

Do you think there are levels of security above the President, so they cannot reveal any of that particularly sensitive information after they leave the WH ?

(I think it is highly likely, as there would be too many potential "holes" in ironclad security if all the Presidents and Vice Presidents knew everything.)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Do you think there really is a "Book of Secrets" passed from one President to the next ?
> 
> (I think it is an interesting concept to have a single book with handwritten observations of their times from Washington to Trump, but is likely a myth.)
> 
> ...


I have no idea, but the president certainly has unique access to information, very sensitive stuff.

It's a reason that it's so important to have reliable people, and mentally stable people in the role. This is one thing I found the most disturbing about his entire presidency. With all of his foreign deals, massive debts, potential ties to the mob, suspicious foreign financing, and erratic (mentally unbalanced) behaviour, this guy is guaranteed to *fail* just about any government security clearance screening.

The president is exempt from that. But everyone else has to go through security checks and screening to get approved for levels like Top Secret. That's how the government protects state secrets. Anyone with Trump's profile would be a clear, automatic denial.

Next we have the nepotism. Due to similarly shady business and concerns of foreign influence, Jared Kushner was denied security access. But Trump arranged for him to have access anyway; a great example of the dangers and corruption of nepotism.

I'm so happy this crooked family [will soon be] out of power. These people were very shady and I guess many American voters just have a very poor radar for detecting shady and crooked people. Or they don't care if people are crooks.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I totally agree, which is why I thought about it.

Trump is not someone you would trust with your most private secrets.

Maybe it is a good thing the reports are that he didn't pay much attention to all the intelligence briefings.

I have paid attention to when former CIA directors and other high level intelligence officials are asked similar questions, and try to study them for any facial or voice "tells" of an overriding concern, but didn't see any. They would say the usual.....we are concerned about national security etc...but no real panic mode.

It makes me think they know more than we know. Maybe Trump wasn't getting the full story in the briefings. At least, that is what I hope.

I can't imagine a scenario where every President, VP and top level person know everything about everything. That would be a security nightmare.

Sometimes secrets are good and "total transparency" is bad.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

potato69 said:


> Having people in power who are not representative to your live experience and a black man or a woman is a real issue for very many people. Let me guess, you're a white man? How can we tell?





potato69 said:


> The role of privilege that many white men benefit from without even knowing? Yes i do.


How can we tell you're racist and sexist?
You think you can tell someones race and gender from the things they say.

For all you know I could be Candace Owens, but she's a bit too conservative for me.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> That's why the federal government, and governments in general, should do as little as possible.
> Let the people closest to the problem decide how to handle that.
> Better the nation than the UN. The province than the nation, the region than the province, the city than the region, the ward than the city, the family than the ward, the individual than the family.
> If the problem is too big, work it backwards, but first make sure the problem is too big.
> ...


I don't think you'd find many who would disagree with this. However, neither political party espouse these views. Not sure there is a mainstream political party that is a home for these views.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't think you'd find many who would disagree with this. However, neither political party espouse these views. Not sure there is a mainstream political party that is a home for these views.


I agree, however I think the NDP and Liberals are much more on the "government program for everything" approach.

For example national daycare program.
1. That's a family issue, lots of cities have programs.
2. Daycare centers are a poor fit for rural communities.

As the low birthrate is a serious national issue, 

I'm for simply giving money to parents to support them, rather than some plan which would be unworkable for many communities.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I agree, however I think the NDP and Liberals are much more on the "government program for everything" approach.
> 
> For example national daycare program.
> 1. That's a family issue, lots of cities have programs.
> ...


Conservatives are big fans of telling people how to live their lives, too.

On this issue, Conservatives want to incentivize women to drop from the labour force. An unacceptable problem when it comes to UBI, but that opposition drops when it means keeping women in their traditional place.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Conservatives are big fans of telling people how to live their lives, too.
> 
> On this issue, Conservatives want to incentivize women to drop from the labour force. An unacceptable problem when it comes to UBI, but that opposition drops when it means keeping women in their traditional place.


I haven't noticed that policy, care to point it out?
Maybe it's my liberal leanings, but I think it's up to the family how they run their affairs.
The government shouldn't encourage, or penalize parents for staying home, or choosing to enter the paid workforce.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

james4beach said:


> I have no idea, but the president certainly has unique access to information, very sensitive stuff.
> 
> It's a reason that it's so important to have reliable people, and mentally stable people in the role. This is one thing I found the most disturbing about his entire presidency. With all of his foreign deals, massive debts, potential ties to the mob, suspicious foreign financing, and erratic (mentally unbalanced) behaviour, this guy is guaranteed to *fail* just about any government security clearance screening.
> 
> ...





MrMatt said:


> I haven't noticed that policy, care to point it out?
> Maybe it's my liberal leanings, but I think it's up to the family how they run their affairs.
> The government shouldn't encourage, or penalize parents for staying home, or choosing to enter the paid workforce.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> It's silly that the nation is so willing to interfere with the actions of the individual, it's simply impossible for any number of people, far away in Ottawa, to know what's best for each and every citizen.
> 
> FYI, those are textbook "Liberal" values.


Agreed. That is why I am against the Liberals Child Care initiatives (early childhood babysitting). If it makes sense, let the provinces do it like Quebec has already done. Otherwise stay out of our homes and schools.

Less government is good government!


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

The news has become corrupt in sync with politics. I believe this has become the case because news has become institutionalized as it is owned by big firms who then direct news to slant news to their personal benefit. The news gravitates towards a political slant & is no longer about news. It is always about selling more adds & pushing their propaganda.

Yellow journalism was created by Pulitzer & Hearst they created the Spanish American war to sell news papers. Pulitzers name became worthless. To rehabilitate Pulitzer donated money to create the Pulitzer for good journalism which he never practiced.

This election is the most corrupt US election ever. One state had 125% more votes then there were registered voters. Corruption has taken over everything. When political corruption is @ its highest do you not think media corruption would not be @ its highest also? Censoring anything that is not from mainstream media on this site is a total disgrace to this site. It promotes the image the site does not seek truth.

I posted a video of Biden admitting to massive voter fraud which the corrupt main stream media will never post was removed. The video also contained some info regarding the election corruption. 

Why was Prairie guy banned from the site did he post something that was not mainstream media ?

Do you really think they are going after Trump? The only reason they are going after Trump is he is standing in the way of them going after you in the great reset.

Face book is removing any posts for rallies against the voter fraud. Why do you think that is ?

Truth is needed for survival. If this site wants to survive stop the censorship that disagrees with main stream media. 


The truth is my friend, I will always challenge contradictions with in my mind to seek truth. The last people I will trust is main stream media that has an agenda. Never think your not smart enough to do your own thinking. I think the people on this forum are smart enough to do their own thinking yet those doing the censoring seam to disagree. The cure for the common herd is independent thinking thus the name

Lonewolf


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

kcowan said:


> Less government is good government!


That was the reason people left Europe to set up camp in North America.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

kcowan said:


> Agreed. That is why I am against the Liberals Child Care initiatives (early childhood babysitting). If it makes sense, let the provinces do it like Quebec has already done. Otherwise stay out of our homes and schools.
> 
> Less government is good government!


No, it's just less bad.

Most of what government does, it does poorly.

So have it do as little as possible


Really, looking at the US, I think we can all agree.
1. We don't want Trump telling us how to live our lives.
2. We don't want Biden telling us how to live our lives.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some of what government does, it does poorly......but CPP, OAS, EI are very large systems that are managed well.

The government tried an experiment in privatized prisons in Lindsay, Ontario at a new supermax facility. 

It was a complete disaster and they went back to the public service.

The Ontario government sold a major toll highway and that was a huge mistake. 

The toll cost has risen and risen and the company is getting fat off the taxpayer built road.

Not saying government systems are perfect, but there is little evidence that the private sector would do a better job, and it might even be worse.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

these huge election celebrations, not to mention huge football game crowds rushing onto the field,
are not best practice, during a pandemic


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> these huge election celebrations, not to mention huge football game crowds rushing onto the field,
> are not best practice, during a pandemic


Freedom MUST include the freedom to make bad decisions.

Plus COVID19 is woke, that's why a Biden rally or BLM protest is okay, but a Trump rally or going to church is not. 

As for "listening to the experts", you should listen, but the real question is what the right trade off is.
We know a full 100% lockdown would work.
We also know it isn't practical, and there will be significant damage from a full lockdown, or even an attempt. We know domestic violence is up, and there are mental health concerns. Those trade offs must be decided by the political leaders. 
Not every decision can be left to experts, also it's important to note that different experts will have different opinions.

For example China went hard Lockdown, Sweden didn't. Why the difference? different opinions and different experts.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Freedom MUST include the freedom to make bad decisions.
> We also know it isn't practical, and there will be significant damage from a full lockdown, or even an attempt. We know domestic violence is up, and there are mental health concerns. Those trade offs must be decided by the political leaders.


The political leaders should not be able to take our liberty & freedom away instead they should be protecting them. People have a right to breath & move we do not need any psychopath Hitlers pitch hitting our thinking. This is no black plaque. Even during the plaque they were smart enough to not lock down the healthy. To allow the police to be able to break into your home because your not physical distancing & having sex is not a good idea. Building of internment camps to lock people down that are not sick are crimes against humanity


----------



## dotnet_nerd (Jul 1, 2009)

:) lonewolf said:


> This election is the most corrupt US election ever. One state had 125% more votes then there were registered voters.


Lonewolf, how can that be? Do you have a source?

My understanding is that votes were counted with both Republican and Democrat scrutineers watching over the whole process. In many cases there were webcams and/or the public was invited to watch the count.

The mail-in ballots were all carefully checked, signatures matched and verified by the voter registry database. Meticulously. Eg. if someone accidentally wrote the current date for their date of birth, these were flagged and double-checked by human error checkers. That's why the results took so many days.

Are you suggesting a whole batch of "Mickey Mouse" ballots got entered? And counted, and nobody said anything? 
-What happened when Mickey Mouse's signature scan failed to match the digitized sample in the database?
-What date of birth and address for Mickey would have been used?

I just don't get it. I can buy a few isolated cases of shenanigans. But how do you rig an entire election?


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

dotnet_nerd said:


> Lonewolf, how can that be? Do you have a source?
> 
> My understanding is that votes were counted with both Republican and Democrat scrutineers watching over the whole process. In many cases there were webcams and/or the public was invited to watch the count.
> 
> ...


(_Link to conspiracy theory removed by Moderator; media source not permitted for election discussion_)


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Dotnet I posted a link to" Keep your faith Trump already won Greg Hunters Watch USA watchdog" the post was removed ? If you google it you will find the video go to 10:20 on the video Greg holds up a piece of paper showing the number of registered voters, the number of votes, & the percentage of people that were eligible that voted. Here is the percent of eligible voters that voted in the following states. 
Nevada 125%,
Pennsylvania 109%, 
Minnesota 107%, 
North Carolina 106%,
Michigan 105%,
Arizona 101% , 
Georgia 96%.
If everyone that is eligible to vote the highest percentage would be 100%. Never do 100% of the people vote so there had to be corruption. Around the 2.5 minute mark on the video Biden actually admits to mass election fraud.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

quote edited to be more concise


:) lonewolf said:


> I posted a link to..... showing the number of registered voters, the number of votes, & the percentage of people that were eligible that voted. Here is the percent of eligible voters that voted in the following states.
> Nevada 125%,


Not that likely.
In Jan 2017 they had 1.6 million registered voters https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=4707
In Oct 2020 they had 2 million registered voters, https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9108
Population of Nevada is 3 million, so 2 million voters seems not unreasonably high.

There were 1.3 million votes cast.
Lots to complain about, but the "too many voters" argument doesn't seem plausible.

Pushing illogical and easily disproven claims just distracts from legitimate concerns.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Freedom MUST include the freedom to make bad decisions.
> 
> Plus COVID19 is woke, that's why a Biden rally or BLM protest is okay, but a Trump rally or going to church is not.
> 
> ...


Your right to make bad decisions ends where bringing harm to others begins. Unless you sign on to charging people with manslaughter if they, through negligence, cause someone to die from COVID?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dotnet_nerd said:


> Lonewolf, how can that be? Do you have a source?
> 
> My understanding is that votes were counted with both Republican and Democrat scrutineers watching over the whole process. In many cases there were webcams and/or the public was invited to watch the count.
> 
> ...


I have lonewolf on ignore, but I surmise he is inventing ludicrously implausible theories for why his worldview has been shattered.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

dotnet_nerd said:


> Lonewolf, how can that be? Do you have a source?
> 
> My understanding is that votes were counted with both Republican and Democrat scrutineers watching over the whole process. In many cases there were webcams and/or the public was invited to watch the count.
> 
> ...


He's a bit into the conspiracy stuff, but your claims aren't universally true.
"The mail-in ballots were all carefully checked, signatures matched and verified by the voter registry database. "
In some states they didn't reject ballots where signatures matched.








Pennsylvania Ballots Can’t Be Thrown Out For Mismatched Signatures, Court Rules In Blow To GOP


The ruling could thwart a GOP tactic to get Democratic ballots rejected in a crucial swing state.




www.forbes.com





As for your examples, if the signatures didn't match, in some cases they apparently counted the vote anyways.
As far as observers, there are claims they didn't get sufficient access as well, though I don't think there have been many rulings confirming that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Your right to make bad decisions ends where bringing harm to others begins. Unless you sign on to charging people with manslaughter if they, through negligence, cause someone to die from COVID?


Ok
So we should ban Smoking, including tobacco and marijuanna in the proximity of anyone.
It's also arguably already illegal Criminal code 245, but well, judges can't read.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Unbelievable........It is now revealed that the first person brought to the podium in the Giuliani press conference at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot, is actually a felon, convicted of mutitple sex crimes, including against children. He was incarcerated for his crimes and lives in New Jersey. He ran for public office in New Jersey several times.

How stupid is Giuliani ? They didn't even do a Google search on their "star" witness. This guy was a designated Republican poll watcher ?

It is also reported that the 1,000 or more "witnesses" are people who called a 1-800 phone line to report fraud. Anti-Trumpers have been flooding the line with ridiculous claims to send the Republicans scrambling off on wild goose chases all over the place. The Republicans are running around chasing bogus stories from people with made up names. Republican supporters aren't going to finance this kind of nonsense and are already backing away.

The Trump/Giuliani crowd will be trying to "grift" all the way to prison. I expect there will be requests to pay the billls of their criminal defense lawyers soon.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Ok
> So we should ban Smoking, including tobacco and marijuanna in the proximity of anyone.
> It's also arguably already illegal Criminal code 245, but well, judges can't read.


It's already fairly prohibited to do so. Not aware of any single exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke being demonstrated to kill someone.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> It's already fairly prohibited to do so. Not aware of any single exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke being demonstrated to kill someone.


You're going to argue that tobacco smoke isn't dangerous?
Really?

Gotta love science deniers. Explains your politics.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Unbelievable........It is now revealed that the first person brought to the podium in the Giuliani press conference at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot, is actually a felon, convicted of mutitple sex crimes, including against children. He was incarcerated for his crimes and lives in New Jersey. He ran for public office in New Jersey several times.
> 
> How stupid is Giuliani ? They didn't even do a Google search on their "star" witness. This guy was a designated Republican poll watcher ?
> ...
> ...


 ... well, Dump Jr. is already out begging his / his old man's flock with the line "can we count on you?" ... will be verrry interesting to see just how many will open up their wallets for their Messiah.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mr. Matt continually sets up "straw men" that blow over in the slightest movement of air. The Trumpsters are, as so eloquently said by Anderson Cooper.....

_"That is the most powerful person in the world, and we see him like an obese turtle on his back, flailing in the hot sun, realizing his time is over." _

Cooper was later criticized and an apology was demanded by some.........to turtles everywhere.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You're going to argue that tobacco smoke isn't dangerous?
> Really?
> 
> Gotta love science deniers. Explains your politics.


Dangerous in different ways. Chronic vs acute. Lead is hazardous to your health. Lead in drinking water can over time become toxic with repeated exposure. Single exposure to lead in the form of a high speed projectile is more acutely hazardous to one's health.

You are conflating second hand tobacco smoke to willfully exposing others to a highly communicable and deadly virus respiratory virus.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Dangerous in different ways. Chronic vs acute. Lead is hazardous to your health. Lead in drinking water can over time become toxic with repeated exposure. Single exposure to lead in the form of a high speed projectile is more acutely hazardous to one's health.
> 
> You are conflating second hand tobacco smoke to willfully exposing others to a highly communicable and deadly virus respiratory virus.


Chronic vs acute? Irrelevant. Exposure to a single cigarette causes harm. Always, in every case. There is no "safe" level of tobacco smoke.
Now you can say that "its so little harm, it should be permitted".
But that's like saying I can punch you in the face, as long as I do it gently.

Back to my point, lots of bad decisions are being made.
People are permitted to make those decisions, though I wish they were more informed about the consequences.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Chronic vs acute? Irrelevant. Exposure to a single cigarette causes harm. Always, in every case. There is no "safe" level of tobacco smoke.
> Now you can say that "its so little harm, it should be permitted".
> But that's like saying I can punch you in the face, as long as I do it gently.
> 
> ...


This isn't terribly scientific. Second hand smoking is already prohibited quite strongly in placed like Ontario, with steep fines. You're suggesting it should be increased to criminal penalties? I don't even know what your point is. Are you saying we should have second-hand smoking level of fines for failure to wear masks or social distance? Or are you saying we should eliminate limits on second hand smoking?

My point is that one sneeze by a COVID-19 carrier can directly cause the death of another person, in a non-probabilistic way. I'm not sure you can say that one puff of second-hand cigarette smoke can kill another person (I don't think you could prove causation in a court of law). You're the one conflating the two. To me, it is clear that one presents a much more direct and immediate health risk to a person than the other.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> This isn't terribly scientific. Second hand smoking is already prohibited quite strongly in placed like Ontario, with steep fines. You're suggesting it should be increased to criminal penalties? I don't even know what your point is. Are you saying we should have second-hand smoking level of fines for failure to wear masks or social distance? Or are you saying we should eliminate limits on second hand smoking?
> 
> My point is that one sneeze by a COVID-19 carrier can directly cause the death of another person, in a non-probabilistic way. I'm not sure you can say that one puff of second-hand cigarette smoke can kill another person (I don't think you could prove causation in a court of law). You're the one conflating the two. To me, it is clear that one presents a much more direct and immediate health risk to a person than the other.


Well I never said one puff of smoke can kill another person. I don't know what it is with people constantly misrepresenting my position.

I agree, you can't conflate the two.
Smoke exposure is an intentional act, it's clearly worse.

Unless you're intentionally spreading, COVID spread is simply carelessness.

Back to my point, we often allow people to harm each other in some ways, and not in other ways. 
The role of legislators is to try and negotiate a reasonable balance.


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325840720360562692


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Given the relative risk, it's obvious that those refusing to follow public health direction on COVID-19 should be subject to harsher penalties than those who break second hand smoking prohibitions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Given the relative risk, it's obvious that those refusing to follow public health direction on COVID-19 should be subject to harsher penalties than those who break second hand smoking prohibitions.


Uhhh, such a bold claim needs justification, particularly when it's laughable on it's face.
Plus the degree of harm arguement is beside the point, the point is that we allow people to make bad decisions, even when they hurt others.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The point is that we generally don't allow people to harm others!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The point is that we generally don't allow people to harm others!


No, we are pretty arbitrary.

As a general "rule" we'd like to keep from hurting each other, but we often allow people to be hurt, directly (somewhat rare), indirectly (quite often), by inaction, or by the consequences of other actions (incredibly common)


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Back to election news: Misinformed through social media, Trump supporters take to the streets to challenge election result

Guy at 3:28 is a laugh. Woman at 5:10 almost got it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No, we are pretty arbitrary.
> 
> As a general "rule" we'd like to keep from hurting each other, but we often allow people to be hurt, directly (somewhat rare), indirectly (quite often), by inaction, or by the consequences of other actions (incredibly common)


So if the status quo is already arbitrary, what is your objection?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> So if the status quo is already arbitrary, what is your objection?


That the rules are arbitrary?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Back to the election.
1. I think all valid votes should be counted.
2. I think invalid votes should not be counted.
3. There has been too much noise and interference and games being played.
4. It doesn't really matter, Biden likely won and Trump likely lost.

overall this election seems not too bad.
IMO remote voting (ie mail in ballots) do not protect sufficiently against voter intimidation. As such I have a moral concern about their legitimacy in general.

However they (the states) agreed to allow mail in ballots, therefore valid mail in ballots should be counted, in accordance with the rules in that state.

I think the real problem here is that there are concerns with 1&2, some are valid concerns, some are not and we aren't very good at resolving them these days.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

I'm not sure I'd be intimidated by receiving a mail in ballot, filling it in at home and choosing between mailing the ballot back or dropping it off at a drop box. I suppose if I had to walk into a polling station to drop it off, then there's the potential for those lined up outside or poll workers to intimidate me.

Or maybe I am missing something that the descriptions of the process don't cover. 


But as you say - states have agreed to mail in ballots going back to the American Civil War so it's not all that new.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump told his followers NOT to vote by mail in ballots and to attend the polls.

I wonder how many Trump supporters ended up not being able to make it to the polls on election day.

The counting has continued and Biden's lead has grown with the overseas military ballots that normally vote Republican.

No amount of recounts or court cases are going to change the outcome. The Trump dynasty was a short one.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm not sure I'd be intimidated by receiving a mail in ballot, filling it in at home and choosing between mailing the ballot back or dropping it off at a drop box. I suppose if I had to walk into a polling station to drop it off, then there's the potential for those lined up outside or poll workers to intimidate me.
> 
> Or maybe I am missing something that the descriptions of the process don't cover.
> 
> ...


Lets say the authority figure in your house says "We're a X house, we all vote X".
At the ballot box, you can go mark a secret ballot.
with a mail in ballot, they can watch you mark the ballot. It is no longer a secret ballot.
That's why it is important to have a physically secure location to vote in.

I do think it is important to have secret ballots, particularly when people feel repercussions if their vote is known.

Also there is the possibility that someone simply fills out your ballot for you.

That being said, the States decided what they thought was reasonable and here we are.
As long as those rules are followed, it's technically a legal election.
How much variation from those stated rules, and if the actions were in compliance with those rules is for the courts to decide.

From a personal moral standpoint, I think elections should be by secret ballot.
But that's just my view on what a free election ought to be.
The laws, as written and implemented, do not require a secret ballot, so that's a non issue.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The fight now turns between the moderate and progressive Democrats. Already, there is disagreement on how progressive the agenda should be.

I would guess it was the work and vote of progressives that got Biden elected and that is the direction he will have to take.

A flurry of executive orders overturning Trump initiatives is expected in the first few days. Biden's cabinet picks will be interesting.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm not sure I'd be intimidated by receiving a mail in ballot, filling it in at home and choosing between mailing the ballot back or dropping it off at a drop box. I suppose if I had to walk into a polling station to drop it off, then there's the potential for those lined up outside or poll workers to intimidate me.


I didn't get that one either  Maybe I am missing something too. Maybe the intimidation comes from a spouse?? Really think that is a major problem?

The problem that could arise with mail-in votes, is perhaps what could happen to a ballot once it has been dropped it in the mail box. Alternative appeared to be to take ballot to a specific ballot drop off box. But in some states they provided very few and perhaps located them where they might be more convenient for those who might vote the "right" way?

Amazing that after all these years a country that considers itself a world leader , still doesn't have an election system that works.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

agent99 said:


> I didn't get that one either  Maybe I am missing something too. Maybe the intimidation comes from a spouse?? Really think that is a major problem?


Have you ever heard about people being beaten up for not signing union cards?
Intimidation in organized labour is well known.

They even try to avoid having secret ballots, because for _some_ reason people people who sign union cards don't always vote to unionize.


For those who can't fathom voter intimidation, imagine a "God fearing" patriarch demanding the whole family vote for the good Christian politician, or they'd be kicked out of the house.
I know of parents who spoke like that, fortunately Canada is (still) mostly secret ballot.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There are a few cases of people arrested for voter fraud. The penalties are stiff. There is no evidence showing wide spread abuse.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> There are a few cases of people arrested for voter fraud. The penalties are stiff. There is no evidence showing wide spread abuse.


I think that's what most reasonable people expect.

It's very unlikely they'll suddenly stumble across enough issues to swing any EC votes.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

so...clarify....are they looking for voter fraud, or whatever, on BOTH sides? dems and reps?
the only 2 case I've seen so far is a woman who tried to vote twice, for trump, and a trump supporter who tried to request a ballot for her dead mother...


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> so...clarify....are they looking for voter fraud, or whatever, on BOTH sides? dems and reps?
> the only 2 case I've seen so far is a woman who tried to vote twice, for trump, and a trump supporter who tried to request a ballot for her dead mother...


It's 4-D chess, the Republicans are doing their best to conduct voter fraud, so that they can claim that the system is corrupt and that there is rampant voter fraud... and yes, I am being sarcastic. Sort of.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> so...clarify....are they looking for voter fraud, or whatever, on BOTH sides? dems and reps?
> the only 2 case I've seen so far is a woman who tried to vote twice, for trump, and a trump supporter who tried to request a ballot for her dead mother...


They're both looking for things that benefit their respective sides.
The Democrats were bragging about how powerful their voter fraud team was and how it was ready to go across the country.
They're just so far ahead they don't need to. Unlike when Gore won/lost where they DID need to fight harder.

I agree, it is mostly silly games, but I think a democratic state requires faith in the electoral process. 
As such, all irregularities should be investigated and addressed. Not because I expect it to change the results, but it's just the right thing to do, morally and legally.

Plus the US is again getting the President they deserve.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm not sure I'd be intimidated by receiving a mail in ballot, filling it in at home and choosing between mailing the ballot back or dropping it off at a drop box. I suppose if I had to walk into a polling station to drop it off, then there's the potential for those lined up outside or poll workers to intimidate me.
> 
> Or maybe I am missing something that the descriptions of the process don't cover.
> 
> ...


The risk is that a 90 year old granny's son supervises and/or influences granny's vote. I've seen people accompanying older individuals to the voting screen while voting here which made me a bit suspicious. I don't doubt there is some of that.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The risk is that a 90 year old granny's son supervises and/or influences granny's vote. I've seen people accompanying older individuals to the voting screen while voting here which made me a bit suspicious. I don't doubt there is some of that.


I agree that is one risk.
Another risk is that someone takes your ballot and mails it in with their preferred candidate, which is exactly why I don't like casting of ballots in insecure circumstances.

They don't even let you take the SAT without an approved proctor, but to vote.. you don't even need a matching signature.

but again (I'll keep repeating it). I don't think they're going to find sufficient issues to change the result.
I still think it is a good idea to address any issues.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Did I hear the news correctly yesterday that Trump fired the Defense secretary or moved him around or something?

Am I the only one that gets nervous when you have a disgruntled ex-president, who promises that he is not leaving the White House, making big changes to the leadership of the military during his last 70 days in office.

Can anyone else see scary things happening when developments like this occur. My mind thinks that in discussions about a back up plan to his legal dispute, that back up plan basically being a military coup, the Defense secretary indicated a lack of enthusiasm for such a plan, so Trump removed him and will go find some other flunky who might be more willing to attempt something stupid.

Now I can't see the military following some flunky who has been in charge only for a few days but who knows. Maybe he can find someone who does not think things out well, who has been high in the military already for a while. I doubt a person like that would be too hard to find.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> Did I hear the news correctly yesterday that Trump fired the Defense secretary or moved him around or something?
> 
> Am I the only one that gets nervous when you have a disgruntled ex-president, who promises that he is not leaving the White House, making big changes to the leadership of the military during his last 70 days in office.
> 
> ...


He did. And there has been speculation that rather than leave peacefully, Trump will burn everything to the ground. Kind of the type of temperament you expect from a 6 year old (which he admits to having).

There's only so much time left, and his mandate expires in January after which he doesn't have any power. Even if he were to find someone amendable to his suggestion to declare martial law or something, the upper brass in the military are likely going to ignore the orders based on the fact that they are likely unlawful. FWIW, I get the impression that he isn't well liked in the military.








Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden


About half of troops surveyed for the poll said they have an unfavorable view of the commander in chief.




www.militarytimes.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't think Trump is going to try some military coup to take over.

If Trump decides to barricade the white house and not leave, that's fine.

The thing is at noon Jan 20, Biden will be sworn in.
The country will simply stop taking his calls, and Biden will hang out somewhere else.

I do think there are those sufficiently partisan to try and Trump it up, but again I hold that cooler heads will likely prevail.

That being said, I thought the more reasonable people would moderate Trudeau, and I was wrong.

I could be wrong again, but I doubt it.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Have you ever heard about people being beaten up for not signing union cards?
> Intimidation in organized labour is well known.


What has that got to do with mail-in voting in the US election? Are households unionized these days?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> The risk is that a 90 year old granny's son supervises and/or influences granny's vote. I've seen people accompanying older individuals to the voting screen while voting here which made me a bit suspicious. I don't doubt there is some of that.


If Granny is no longer interested in politics but would like to take part in the voting, no problem having her son take her to polls and tell her how to vote and who to vote for.

Even husband and wife may fall into similar situation. Many people are just not that interested enough to know who to vote for. Many don't bother. But no problem if spouse or son or ?? can get them there and advise them as to where to put their X.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

agent99 said:


> What has that got to do with mail-in voting in the US election? Are households unionized these days?


I'm pointing out an example of intimidation that exists in votes that are not secret ballot.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

^^^^^#275
I would suggest thats been going on long before this election


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How do you know thousands of Liberals didn't become members of the Conservative Party so they could vote for the weakest leadership candidate ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> How do you know thousands of Liberals didn't become members of the Conservative Party so they could vote for the weakest leadership candidate ?


I don't, but I don't think it's widespread.
I'm not sure what the consequences of a fraudulent party membership are, but quite honestly it's nearly undetectable as party lists are not public knowledge.

I do know that for the last leadership several Liberal supporters did to vote for Michael Chong.

There is also the dairy industry support of Scheer to block Bernier.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> If Granny is no longer interested in politics but would like to take part in the voting, no problem having her son take her to polls and tell her how to vote and who to vote for.
> 
> Even husband and wife may fall into similar situation. Many people are just not that interested enough to know who to vote for. Many don't bother. But no problem if spouse or son or ?? can get them there and advise them as to where to put their X.


Um, no. Your vote is your own. That's why we have a secret ballot.

Nothing stops son and granny talking about who they might vote for, but son should not be able to verify who granny votes for. He only gets his one vote.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The postal worker in Erie, Pennsyvania who said he witnessed ballot tampering has recanted his story.

Once he learned there was a big investigation into it, he thought he better confess.

This is the story that set Senator Lindsey Graham and AG Bill Barr off on a wild goose chase.

You can always count on them for the facts. So far coming from a convicted sex felon and a lying postal worker.

From the Washington Post

_Richard Hopkins’s claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy.

But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the “whistleblower completely RECANTED.”_


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The postal worker in Erie, Pennsyvania who said he witnessed ballot tampering has recanted his story.
> 
> Once he learned there was a big investigation into it, he thought he better confess.
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is that there was a legitimate reason to investigate?
A person with access to and knowledge of the postal system, made allegations, which were then investigated and found not to be true.

Isn't that EXACTLY what we want to happen?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Um, no. Your vote is your own. That's why we have a secret ballot.
> 
> Nothing stops son and granny talking about who they might vote for, but son should not be able to verify who granny votes for. He only gets his one vote.


 Um, yes - No reason why son can't advise granny HOW to vote. And advise her WHO to vote for (if she asks or has no clue). I don't believe I said anything about son verifying anything. It is not even possible in Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> So what you're saying is that there was a legitimate reason to investigate?
> A person with access to and knowledge of the postal system, made allegations, which were then investigated and found not to be true.
> 
> Isn't that EXACTLY what we want to happen?


Sure......and now Senator Graham and AG Barr can go on national television and apologize to the American people for pushing unfounded allegations.

It is the Republicans who are going public with all unfounded allegations for political reasons, and they are getting mocked all over the internet.

People are still laughing at Rudy's press conference at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping building, but at least the company is making money from it.

They are selling t-shirts and hoodies........Make America Rake Again........LOL.









Four Seasons Total Landscaping selling 'make America rake again' merchandise after Trump team press conference


Four Seasons Total Landscaping is cashing in on its viral fame after Trump campaign press conference.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> So what you're saying is that there was a legitimate reason to investigate?
> A person with access to and knowledge of the postal system, made allegations, which were then investigated and found not to be true.
> 
> Isn't that EXACTLY what we want to happen?


They can and, if credible, ought to be investigated. But the Trump campaign should not be making wild accusations about widespread voter fraud much less assert it is large enough to overturn the election all in the absence of evidence.

Trump, being the worst president ever, will unsurprisingly make a hash of the transition and do maximum damage to America's institutions and faith therein until he is pried from office.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

agent99 said:


> Um, yes - No reason why son can't advise granny HOW to vote. And advise her WHO to vote for (if she asks or has no clue). I don't believe I said anything about son verifying anything. It is not even possible in Canada.


Well, I have seen two adults go to the same screen to mark their ballots. Watched it with my own two eyes while waiting in line. Perhaps it is prohibited, but sonny sure did see how granny marked her ballot (aka verified).

I have a lot of problems with a patriarch 'helping' to ensure everyone in his family votes a certain way, with who knows what kind of coercion at play.

If granny needs help, you can get a sample/specimen ballot and show her what it looks like and how to mark it. She can even bring it with her to the screen.

ETA: here are the rules. It is not prohibited for an elector to be accompanied to the screen by a 'friend' (whatever the legal definition of that is) or relative. See 155.


https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/fulltext.html


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Next election, make sure you take Granny along and make a solemn declaration before helping her vote!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> They can and, if credible, ought to be investigated. But the Trump campaign should not be making wild accusations about widespread voter fraud much less assert it is large enough to overturn the election all in the absence of evidence.
> 
> Trump, being the worst president ever, will unsurprisingly make a hash of the transition and do maximum damage to America's institutions and faith therein until he is pried from office.


I agree, as most reasonable people do.

I do think Trump has been pretty bad, not sure Biden is going to be any better.
Sure Biden might have a filter between himself and twitter, but the guy has spent nearly half a century in politics, and he's been on the wrong side of many issues.

That being said, he's still the president and should run things as well as he can, but he should also work towards a smooth transition anyway.

Politicians seem to be getting worse, not better. But it also might be we are more aware of what they're up to.
Also the way things are, they seem to lack respect for the institutions and traditions that support our society.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Lets say the authority figure in your house says "We're a X house, we all vote X".
> At the ballot box, you can go mark a secret ballot.
> with a mail in ballot, they can watch you mark the ballot. It is no longer a secret ballot ...
> Also there is the possibility that someone simply fills out your ballot for you.
> ...


I suppose ... but then again, how many who disagree are going to stay in that environment?





MrMatt said:


> ... Another risk is that someone takes your ballot and mails it in with their preferred candidate, which is exactly why I don't like casting of ballots in insecure circumstances.
> 
> They don't even let you take the SAT without an approved proctor, but to vote.. you don't even need a matching signature ...


For some states, sure. For other states (about thirty of them), signature matching is the minimum. Some require a witness in addition to the voter's signature match.
It seems to be YMMV free for all ... likely highlighting the need for a Federal requirement for the Federal election.


But as you say, it's what each state decided (at least one of the "mail to everyone" states is a Republican stronghold). It will be interesting to see how the voter fraud database is updated and whether the numbers are up, the same or down (as well as the types).


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I do think Trump has been pretty bad, not sure Biden is going to be any better.


I think you're really far off the mark if you think Trump concerns are anywhere close to Biden concerns.

You keep making posts like this, that Trump is bad but everyone else is bad too ... that is absolutely incorrect. Trump's abuses of power and disregard for government norms is VERY far off of any kind of normal. Biden has already been in power (with Obama) so we know what he's like and he's a very normal politician with very moderate positions on everything, and quite competent.

In contrast, Trump is absolutely incompetent, has no interest in normal government operation, and his ideological positions are on the fringes & extreme. He is not comparable in any way to any of these other politicians you keep drawing false equivalencies with.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> It seems to be YMMV free for all ... likely highlighting the need for a Federal requirement for the Federal election.


Massive infringement on States rights, not likely to happen. 
Now it is possible that the states could work together on making a common standard.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I think you're really far off the mark if you think Trump concerns are anywhere close to Biden concerns.
> 
> You keep making posts like this, that Trump is bad but everyone else is bad too ... that is absolutely incorrect. Trump's abuses of power and disregard for government norms is VERY far off of any kind of normal.
> 
> Besides, Biden has already been in power (with Obama) so we know what he's like and he's a very normal politician with very moderate positions on everything.


I disagree with you. I think there are legitimate concerns with Biden/Harris.

I agree, he's a very normal politician. Thats exactly why he's a problem, in his near half century in office he's been on both sides of many issues.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I disagree with you. I think there are legitimate concerns with Biden/Harris.
> 
> I agree, he's a very normal politician. Thats exactly why he's a problem, in his near half century in office he's been on both sides of many issues.


So you don't want normal or moderate. You want an unstable extremist in power instead?

Do you know how much harm unstable extremists can cause? Weren't you in the military? Didn't you guys go around the world and have to fight unstable extremists?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Massive infringement on States rights, not likely to happen.
> Now it is possible that the states could work together on making a common standard.


Doesn't seem likely the states would all agree on a common standard with all the permutations and combinations out there. 


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> So you don't want normal or moderate. You want an unstable extremist in power instead?
> 
> Do you know how much harm unstable extremists can cause? Weren't you in the military? Didn't you guys go around the world and have to fight unstable extremists?


The choice isn't between normal and moderate vs unstable extremist.
It's was between a normal extremist, and an unstable moderate.

Trumps policies have been reasonably moderate, Biden is supporting the Green New Deal, and a lot of other extreme policies. 
That being said Trump is quite erratic, vengeful and not very nice.
Biden is clearly suffering a decline in cognitive ability, he's also openly racist.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Biden specifically did not sign on to the Green New Deal. I know there is a big Project Fear about how radical he is going to be. He won't be. The progressive wing of the Dem party is going to be very frustrated. FFS, Biden is mulling a cabinet that is half Republican! To call Trump a moderate is laughable. Where were all the Democrats in his cabinet? Where are all the consensus SCOTUS justices he appointed? Trump was in no way a moderate.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Biden specifically did not sign on to the Green New Deal. I know there is a big Project Fear about how radical he is going to be. He won't be.


Agreed. The fear is if his partner takes over.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Biden specifically did not sign on to the Green New Deal. I know there is a big Project Fear about how radical he is going to be. He won't be. The progressive wing of the Dem party is going to be very frustrated. FFS, Biden is mulling a cabinet that is half Republican! To call Trump a moderate is laughable. Where were all the Democrats in his cabinet? Where are all the consensus SCOTUS justices he appointed? Trump was in no way a moderate.


"Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. "








Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice | Joe Biden


Joe Biden knows climate change is the greatest threat facing our country and our world, and he has a bold plan for a clean energy revolution.




joebiden.com





Please provide a reputable source that Biden is considering a half Republican Cabinet.

What actual policy did Trump push that was extremist?
Enforcing the laws passed by the legislature? Following the recommendations of the CIA?

Yes it's possible (even likely) that Biden won't follow his platform once in office.
But if your defense of him is that he was lying on the campaign trail... that's not really a plus.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> Agreed. The fear is if his partner takes over.
> 
> ltr


The fear is if he actually does the stuff he campaigned on.
But yeah, as bad as Biden is, Harris and the rest of the party is worse.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The choice isn't between normal and moderate vs unstable extremist.
> It's was between a normal extremist, and an unstable moderate.
> 
> Trumps policies have been reasonably moderate, Biden is supporting the Green New Deal, and a lot of other extreme policies.
> ...


Wow you actually think Biden is an extremist? You think the pro-corporate vice president who's already been in charge for 8 years is an extremist?

I think you're way off of reality MrMatt. I'm not even convinced you actually believe the stuff you post. It's just too wacky.

I also notice that you use all the Republican and MAGA propaganda tactics. Trump being called an extremist? No, Biden is the extremist (night is day). MAGA people are racists? No, democrats are racists... that kind of junk.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Biden specifically did not sign on to the Green New Deal. I know there is a big Project Fear about how radical he is going to be. He won't be. The progressive wing of the Dem party is going to be very frustrated. FFS, Biden is mulling a cabinet that is half Republican! To call Trump a moderate is laughable. Where were all the Democrats in his cabinet? Where are all the consensus SCOTUS justices he appointed? Trump was in no way a moderate.


Trump is the farthest thing from a moderate possible. The guy is basically an anti-western-values extremist in the top position.

For example, describing hispanics at the border as invading hordes (extreme xenophobia), banning Muslim visitors based on their religion, and encouraging armed extremists to terrorize protesters.

Make no mistake, Trump represents the *radical right*. He's not a traditional conservative, either.

Let's not forget that White House staff routinely gets content from fringe conspiracy theory web sites, re-tweeting them. They've been doing this since he first ran for president ... this guy and his crew are _nuts_. These are not normal people, and their political ideology is off the charts.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My only concern would be that Biden is too nice a guy. 

He won with the support and hard work of many progressives who want changes in the direction of the country.

Any notion that those progressives are going to agree to "negotiate" their issues with the Republicans is brain fart fairy dust.

There will be a strong emphasis on all the progressive issues the Republicans hate with a passion.

The progressive caucus is the most powerful in the Democratic Party. They all won re-election handily and will replace Pelosi and the old guard.

Too bad for the Republicans, but they rolled the dice with Trump and lost.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Republicans had the chance to stand up for America and chose not to. 

They choose not to still today as they continue to pander to Trump's delusions that he won the election.

The Democrats owe the Republicans dick squat worth of consideration, and that is how much they should give them.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Looks like the whole election fraud is just a play for Trump to line his pockets one more time: Small dollar donations to Trump’s election defence fund likely going to president, RNC.
When you consider that many of the lawsuits have already been thrown out, there is realistically nothing that's going to be accomplished. Here's Every Trump Campaign Lawsuit Filed Since Election Day
Particularly when you consider that it isn't just one state (like Florida in 2000), but you need multiple states and in some cases we're talking about 10s if not 100s of thousands of votes to swing his way.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Trump is the farthest thing from a moderate possible. The guy is basically an anti-western-values extremist in the top position.
> 
> For example, describing hispanics at the border as invading hordes (extreme xenophobia), banning Muslim visitors based on their religion, and encouraging armed extremists to terrorize protesters.
> 
> ...


You keep making unfounded claims.
Biden has stated, on his campaign website, that a complete restructuring of the country is part of his platform. (Bit extreme IMO)

It's not xenophobic to be concerned with hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering or attempting to enter the country.
I think it's a reasonable position is that laws passed by the legislature (like border controls) should be enforced.

I've asked again and again for an example of the "radical" policy, but you haven't stated a single one.
I know he's not a traditional conservative. That's his appeal.
He's simply focused on security, free speech and anti-racism. Those 3 things are enough for many.


Yeah, Trump has some nuts, he's also fired a lot of people.
That being said the anti-trumpers keep spouting nonsense, how long has "grab them by the *****" stuck around?
It's pretty well known that sufficient famous or attractive people can often get away breaking societal norms.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Republicans had the chance to stand up for America and chose not to.
> 
> They choose not to still today as they continue to pander to Trump's delusions that he won the election.
> 
> The Democrats owe the Republicans dick squat worth of consideration, and that is how much they should give them.


The number of people who think Trump won is dwindling fast, and as time goes on, and it becomes clear that there isn't enough fraud it will continue to fall.
There are still people who claim Hilary Clinton won the election, so there are always some who will never give up.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Why this mania for censorship? What are you afraid of?


Anyone else get banned for calling out extreme censorship...or was it just me?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

So, here's something fun... If the election results don't get certified, Trump doesn't remain President like he thinks he does, Pelosi actually becomes President as she is next in-line after the VP. Given that no certified results mean no official President and VP, she steps in. Pelosi Would Become President If Election Results Are Not Certified, Says Law Professor


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> So, here's something fun... If the election results don't get certified, Trump doesn't remain President like he thinks he does, Pelosi actually becomes President as she is next in-line after the VP. Given that no certified results mean no official President and VP, she steps in. Pelosi Would Become President If Election Results Are Not Certified, Says Law Professor


That's nonsense
The state chooses their electors and they vote.
There are inconsistent rules on how electors are selected.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> That's nonsense
> The state chooses their electors and they vote.
> There are inconsistent rules on how electors are selected.


It's not nonsense. The point is if there is some sort of delay or uncertainty on how accepting the results of the election and subsequent electoral college vote, you go to the line of succession because the positions are vacated as of Jan 20 when Trump is out of office.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> It's not nonsense. The point is if there is some sort of delay or uncertainty on how accepting the results of the election and subsequent electoral college vote, you go to the line of succession because the positions are vacated as of Jan 20 when Trump is out of office.


You're assuming the EC vote doesn't take place.
That's quite a leap, and one that isn't even argued in the article you cite.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> You're assuming the EC vote doesn't take place.
> That's quite a leap, and one that isn't even argued in the article you cite.


The article talks about certification of the election. The certification process is the step before the states send the electors to the college. What's next? Saturday's election verdict isn't last step

So yes, if there is no certification, then there is no EC vote, or at least some of the states won't be sending electors in time for the vote. But given that Dec 8 is supposed to be the deadline to resolve disputes at a state level, the vote SHOULD happen. Note that doesn't mean Trump is trying to change the rules. However, Trump is doing his best to either circumvent or cast doubt on the process.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> The article talks about certification of the election. The certification process is the step before the states send the electors to the college. What's next? Saturday's election verdict isn't last step
> 
> So yes, if there is no certification, then there is no EC vote, or at least some of the states won't be sending electors in time for the vote. But given that Dec 8 is supposed to be the deadline to resolve disputes at a state level, the vote SHOULD happen. Note that doesn't mean Trump is trying to change the rules. However, Trump is doing his best to either circumvent or cast doubt on the process.







__





National Archives |







www.archives.gov




""Even if a State is unable to resolve a controversy by the statutory deadline, nothing prevents the State from appointing electors.""

*""What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?*
If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential election leaves the Electoral College process and moves to Congress. 

The House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote and it is up to the individual States to determine how to vote. (Since the District of Columbia is not a State, it has no State delegation in the House and cannot vote). A candidate must receive at least 26 votes (a majority of the States) to be elected.""

Please cite a source for your claim that certification is required.
Please cite your claim that if there is no EC vote, or no 270 reached that it doesnt' simply go to the house, as stated in the archives.gov link I provided.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing prevents the State from appointing the electors, but if you believe that you don't need to certify the voting results, then why in the world is Trump putting out lawsuits to delay it? He's just wasting everyone's time then. However, it is only the certified votes that are considered official: Understanding Election Results - Vote.org

What Adler was suggesting is that if there is they can't get the election process sorted out, then both positions are considered vacant which leaves it to the House Speaker.

So, at any case, under most scenarios, Biden is President regardless; however, these aren't normal times.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Nothing prevents the State from appointing the electors, but if you believe that you don't need to certify the voting results, then why in the world is Trump putting out lawsuits to delay it? He's just wasting everyone's time then. However, it is only the certified votes that are considered official: Understanding Election Results - Vote.org
> 
> What Adler was suggesting is that if there is they can't get the election process sorted out, then both positions are considered vacant which leaves it to the House Speaker.
> 
> So, at any case, under most scenarios, Biden is President regardless; however, these aren't normal times.


I don't dispute any of what you claim in this post.

I simply disagree that the election process isn't sorted out, and you haven't explained how the process is in danger of failing as you claim in your previous post. Sorry, just posting link to some guys opinion doesn't cut it, we already have 2 guys claiming they won the election.

The process is simple.
The states appoint electors, and they vote, hit 270, we're done.
If the vote doesn't hit 270, it goes to the House.


At this point you're posting misleading information on the election.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Why is this thread still active? Moderators please close it down.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The election is over. Biden won easily. No court is going to overturn the will of the people. Republicans need to get a grip on reality.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The election is over. Biden won easily. No court is going to overturn the will of the people. Republicans need to get a grip on reality.


The election isn't over until January 6th.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The election is over. The votes have been cast. The votes have been counted. The winner has been declared.

The Trumpsters are tying to "overturn" the election. It isn't going to happen.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The election is over. The votes have been cast. The votes have been counted. The winner has been declared.
> 
> The Trumpsters are tying to "overturn" the election. It isn't going to happen.


The votes are counted January 6th.
I agree Biden will likely win. 

All these people with crazy ideas is almost funny.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

kcowan said:


> Why is this thread still active? Moderators please close it down.


Good point. Election is over, closing this thread.


----------

