Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official 2020 Election General***


hagmania

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

Coming from Pittsburgh I know him well. He is a great guy and his heart is definitely in the right place but I don’t think he has the personality to be a good president.

I would definitely vote for him for congress though.  Very intimidating character that doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

I took his comment to mean just part of the administration and not necessarily POTUS although the ham sandwich he mentions in the article would be better than what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

Coming from Pittsburgh I know him well. He is a great guy and his heart is definitely in the right place but I don’t think he has the personality to be a good president.

I would definitely vote for him for congress though.  Very intimidating character that doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

I want him to run for Senate in 22. I could see him in The White House one day. I think his personality might be what we need

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Spartans Rule said:

The founding fathers didn't even think the Electoral College was a great idea at the time. It was a last-minute compromise to end a stalemate between those who wanted to use a popular vote to choose the President and those who wanted Congress to do it. And our politics have changed so much that most of the points they were debating are now irrelevant. But we hold it up as this brilliant thing they came up with.

If we didn't already have the EC, and someone suggested it today, it would seem ridiculous. All the states elect governors via popular vote, but I don't see arguments that's a flawed method, even though the same concerns about big cities dominating the campaigns should apply.

Oh, didn't know you were actually there at the creation of the Constitution.  Tell me what your anti-aging secret is.  :)

And, ALL the founding fathers?  Or just the ones that support your opinion?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mile High said:

If there isn't proof of massive voter fraud in the millions he shouldn't be the only one.

Again, do you guys know what treason is?  

As I said in an earlier post, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones especially considering the behavior of the left over the last four years with fake dossiers, unsubstantiated charges and just things made up out of thin air to try and "get" Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, the rover said:

Hopefully at some point Rudy gets hit with CR 11 sanctions and disciplined.   He really should lose his license for making so many provably false statements both to the courts and the public.  

It's amazing what a hit his rep has taken.  He was one of the shining stars of America following 9/11, and now 19 years later, he is a laughingstock. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

It's amazing what a hit his rep has taken.  He was one of the shining stars of America following 9/11, and now 19 years later, he is a laughingstock. 

You'd think that when your wife leaves you, publicly stating that you've become a terrible person, there might be some level of introspection but he just doubled down.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Thunderlips said:

I'm not opposed to the EC.

That being said, we always hear about how the Democratic Party has forgotten about part of America.  Why do we never hear the opposite?  The Republican Party has no real interest in appealing to the largest urban centers in the country.  They have a distinct EC strategy....but as those urban centers expand out; both in their respective states and when urban minded viewers move away from their centers to other states (NC/Georgia/Texas/Arizona), that strategy is going to become less and less reliable.  

The most popular Republican candidate since Reagan lost the popular vote( and narrowly won the EC Vote) to a very unlikeable candidate in 2016.  The Republicans lost in 2018....and the most popular Republican candidate since Reagan lost the election to one of the most "vanilla" of candidates in 2020.

IF the DNC managed to consistently get a candidate who generates even a 6,7 or 8 (out of 10) enthusiasm...Republicans will never sniff the White House again.  If I'm a Republican that bothers me....and what would even bother me more is that I'm sure the D's are seeing Texas as vulnerable.  Once TX goes reliably purple.....it's over Federally for the Republicans. 

 

Sounds that great in theory, but with all due respect, that isn't realistic.  Look at the last six DNC candidates. Only two generated real excitement and enthusiasm (B. Clinton and Obama).  Their last two candidates, Hillary and Joe, generated about as much enthusiasm as the Monday morning commute to work does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If you think three-fifths was too high rather than too low, I agree.

When most people complain about the three-fifths provision, they make it sound like it was offensively low.

Sure, the 3/5 ths provision is horribly racist and enshrined salvery directly into the founding document of the republic, leading to a lot of issues down the road.  But it should be viewed in its historical context.  The move for emancipation of slaves was just getting going in the western world in the late 1700s.  Sure, the new United States could have been very progressive and emancipated the slaves, but it was founded 30-40 years too early.  Likely would have caused a civil war or formation of 2 nations from the 13 colonies.

Slavery is odious and hard to contemplate today, which is why the 3/5 ths thing seems so ridiculous, but it wasn't so ridiculous back in 1789.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Sounds that great in theory, but with all due respect, that isn't realistic.  Look at the last six DNC candidates. Only two generated real excitement and enthusiasm (B. Clinton and Obama).  Their last two candidates, Hillary and Joe, generated about as much enthusiasm as the Monday morning commute to work does. 

True.  But Democrats at least can take solace in the fact that their (at best) vanilla candidates have won the popular vote in three out of four elections; with two of those elections being against (arguably) a Republican candidate whose passion and popularity levels amongst his supporters is almost unparalleled.  And let's be honest about 04......  John Kerry was blander than Hillary and Joe combined.....and he lost 286 to 251.....with 45+ EC votes within 2%.  That's not exactly a slam dunk "mandate" for the Republican Party.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

We should get rid of primaries completely. Have a general election with ranked-choice voting. No formal recognition of parties.

I'd love to see this...isn't there a state switching to this for local/state elections?  Thought I'd heard someone trying to do this.  Parties won't go for it as it doesn't really provide the cover that "us vs them" does, but I'd like to see it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Oh, didn't know you were actually there at the creation of the Constitution.  Tell me what your anti-aging secret is.  :)

And, ALL the founding fathers?  Or just the ones that support your opinion?

 

This is a weird post. I have no idea if he's right - but we have recorded history. It was only 250 years ago. It is a knowable statement.

Edited by whoknew
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, General Malaise said:
3 hours ago, mrip541 said:

You'd think that when your wife leaves you, publicly stating that you've become a terrible person, there might be some level of introspection but he just doubled down.

Don't forget his daughter also despises him.  Quite a legacy he's leaving

Yeah, not going to be throwing any stones at this portion of his life, myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kwille said:

When Chris freaking Christie is describing the legal defense as a national embarrassment ...

Guess he didn’t get the talking point that you’re supposed to call them “well respected” and that their strategy is to lose as quickly as possible so they can get in front of the Supreme Court.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Wisconsin, where the requesting candidate has to pay for a recount, Georgia taxpayers must now pay to count votes for a third time.   Not sure the cost in GA, but WI was $3 million.  This should be broadcast to every GA voter as they consider the senate election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the rover said:

Unlike Wisconsin, where the requesting candidate has to pay for a recount, Georgia taxpayers must now pay to count votes for a third time.   Not sure the cost in GA, but WI was $3 million.  This should be broadcast to every GA voter as they consider the senate election.

That’s on Georgia though. They have to change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the rover said:

It's dumb to not charge for a frivolous recount, but the voters should be aware that they're paying for this nonsense.

 

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/voters-contront-georgia-lawmakers-over-new-touchscreen-election-system/Jj26WLlCuMXKuzL6nZo9oI/

 

State legislators listened to three hours of testimony during the first hearing on a bill to buy touchscreen machines that print ballots, a $150 million technology that would create a paper ballot that could be used to check the electronic count.

Members of the House subcommittee didn't vote Tuesday on House Bill 316 and will continue hearing from the public Wednesday.

Voters told state legislators that touchscreens are an expensive solution that won't solve concerns about election integrity. They want paper ballots bubbled in with a pen, saying a $30 million hand-marked paper ballot voting system is the best way to prevent tampering and hacking.

“Hand-marked paper ballots are the state of the art when it comes to secure voting systems,” said a voter, Elizabeth Shackelford as she received a round of applause from the audience. “Security of our vote is extraordinarily paramount. ... Why would you not go for the ultimate in transparency?”

But election officials said the touchscreen voting machines, called ballot-marking devices, are accurate because they can help avoid errors that could be introduced by voters marking their ballots by hand....

Critics of the touchscreen system, including cybersecurity experts, say the computer-printed ballots couldn’t be trusted.

Voters wouldn’t necessarily catch errors on their printed ballots, and voting information could be encoded in bar codes that humans wouldn’t be able to verify.

“There’s not a person here that can read a bar code,” said a voter, George Balbona. “You guys are boldly cramming this bill down our throat.”

About 55 percent of Georgia voters surveyed said in a poll by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last month that they prefer paper ballots filled in by voters over paper ballots filled in by a computer.

 

*****

 

Raffensperger and those up the food chain are ordering  hybrid "recounts" again and again as political cover.  Georgia forced a system onto voters, in which they were consistently polled as they not wanting, that was 3-4 times the cost of the previous system, that had documented testing flaws, that removed individual voters the ability to verify their actual votes,  raising questions on why the new system was not actually compliant with actual legislative voting system requirements, which was all approved by a Barack Obama appointed judge and DNC loyalist, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg.  A system, that still prevailed in the bidding process despite all this,  by a company , Dominion, where the money trails back to a private equity firm, the McCarthy Group, where no one knows are all the investors. And given all this that happened, because of the court of public opinion and optics, will likely have to be replaced by something else equally or more expensive, at the taxpayer dime.

The voting procedures of a particular state are generally left up to the state as long as it meets certain guidelines. You can certainly blame Trump for turning this all into a legal mess in terms of public optics, but this does not absolve policy makers in Georgia of blame here.

States cannot have their own form of autonomy from harsh federal oversight without also answering to the open questions of accountability.

Which Georgia politicians or special interests benefited from pushing through a new more expensive voting machine system that has shown enough flaws/controversy to aid in the complication of this process?  It's a lot easier to avoid these questions, which are political poison for some Georgia policy makers and power brokers , if the narrative stays "Orange Man Bad" at all costs.

Trump may be fumbling his legal actions here again and again, but it does not change the reality that there are a lot of things clearly wrong about this entire Dominion situation. If this situation was reversed between Trump and Biden, and there were dead people voting, missing memory cards, accusations of observers being pushed out, special interests involved in a new and more expensive voting system that has transparency issues, most of you hardened liberals would be frothing at the mouth.

Forgive me, I interrupted some of you, let's continue with the Orange Man Bad fight song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

Can someone explain what happens if Michigan refuses to certify their vote? Do they have a laws in place to deal with this situation? Or did no one ever consider the possibility that the vote wouldn't automatically be certified?

Yes, there are laws in place requiring certification once canvassing is complete.  There is no reason to believe they won’t follow the law and certify the results, but if they were to refuse it would end up in court with a lawsuit for an injunction requiring them to follow the law.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, the rover said:

This wall of words had nothing whatsoever to do with my post to which you responded.   You seem obsessed with repeating a particular agenda, regardless of its relevance.   

 

When you say ,  "voters should be aware that they're paying for this nonsense."

Do you mean the hybrid recounts which show flaws in the voting system in Georgia where multiple passes need to be made to provide authenticity and transparency?

Or do you mean, before this election, when Georgia policy makers recently pushed in a controversial system that cost over 100 million dollars, when the older established system cost 30 million, that still did not meet legislative guidelines and was fought over in the courts and looks poised to be replaced as it's now a source of national and international controversy?

Even before this current election, there are documented cases of this Dominion system as having major problems and a recent recount a few days ago found 6 thousand lost votes via memory cards that were not properly inventoried and accounted for and processed. This is a system where Georgia taxpayers didn't even want it and paid over three times more than the old system, only to have Raffensperger order a hybrid recount, not even in their auditing protocol, because the existing protocols weren't sufficient enough to provide authentic transparency.

This isn't just about Donald J Trump, this is also about career politicians and policy makers, not associated with Trump, wanting to not lose their seats and jobs in the near future.

If a recent recount found 6 thousand uncounted votes, how is that frivolous?  It's painfully EXPENSIVE and it's a clear mark against Georgia policy makers. If Georgia doesn't want that expense incurred, then GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. PICK A SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T COST OVER THREE TIMES MORE THAN THE OLD SYSTEM. PICK A SYSTEM WHERE YOU DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED PROTOCOLS LATER TO GET IT RIGHT. PICK A SYSTEM THAT YOUR CITIZENS WILL SUPPORT. PICK A SYSTEM THAT WON'T NEED TO BE REPLACED SOON BECAUSE OF CONTROVERSY.  You don't expose yourself to endless recounts when you answer up to your end of the accountability spectrum before the problems start.

This could end up costing taxpayers HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOTAL. When it used to cost 30 million and everyone was comfortable with the old system.

You say you want to talk about COST to the taxpayer but clearly you don't want to talk about actual cost to the taxpayer. Since actually talking about what it would cost Georgians can only be categorized as a "particular agenda"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whoknew said:

 

This is a weird post. I have no idea if he's right - but we have recorded history. It was only 250 years ago. It is a knowable statement.

Don't you know that history books are written by history professors? And that history professors are all liberal mouthpieces at those liberal colleges? That means they probably make up the "facts" in their books. You can't believe that stuff. If you want the truth, go ask Rudy or Kayleigh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, the rover said:
9 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Can someone explain what happens if Michigan refuses to certify their vote? Do they have a laws in place to deal with this situation? Or did no one ever consider the possibility that the vote wouldn't automatically be certified?

Yes, there are laws in place requiring certification once canvassing is complete.  There is no reason to believe they won’t follow the law and certify the results, but if they were to refuse it would end up in court with a lawsuit for an injunction requiring them to follow the law.

I'm a little concerned about the whole certification thing today. If it doesn't happen, it will give rise to "see, maybe there is something there". That is not what we need right now. Everything could unravel, and fast. 

I'm almost stunned that our election process involving millions of votes can boil down to one or two guys opinion and what they feel like doing. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jwb said:

I'm a little concerned about the whole certification thing today. If it doesn't happen, it will give rise to "see, maybe there is something there". That is not what we need right now. Everything could unravel, and fast. 

I'm almost stunned that our election process involving millions of votes can boil down to one or two guys opinion and what they feel like doing. 

Yes this is bizarre, especially considering that the Wayne count "irregularities" involve only 450 ballots out of 800k+ cast.  For the sake of argument just throw out all 450 and move on with the certification.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Can someone explain what happens if Michigan refuses to certify their vote? Do they have a laws in place to deal with this situation? Or did no one ever consider the possibility that the vote wouldn't automatically be certified?

Lawfare had a good analysis: lawfareblog.com/state-laws-governing-trumps-power-grab-michigan

TLDR: Biden would file a request with the state Court Of Appeals, and the Court would order the Board Of Canvassers to certify the results. Michigan precedent does not allow the Board Of Canvassers to delay certification; the Board's only role is to count votes. Once Wayne County certified, the Board can't go back and question that certification.

I suppose it's possible that the Court would deny Biden's request, or that the Republican board members would resign in protest (apparently they can't certify if they don't have 4 members), which would cause further delays.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

Lawfare had a good analysis: lawfareblog.com/state-laws-governing-trumps-power-grab-michigan

TLDR: Biden would file a request with the state Court Of Appeals, and the Court would order the Board Of Canvassers to certify the results. Michigan precedent does not allow the Board Of Canvassers to delay certification; the Board's only role is to count votes. Once Wayne County certified, the Board can't go back and question that certification.

I suppose it's possible that the Court would deny Biden's request, or that the Republican board members would resign in protest (apparently they can't certify if they don't have 4 members), which would cause further delays.

Heard on CNN this morning (in the car, didn't see who was talking) that Michigan's governor, Gretchen Whitmer, appoints all members of the state's Board of Canvassers and can also summarily dismiss them at will. So if the two Republicans currently on that board dig in their heels, they can be replaced by the governor. What I don't know is if the Board of Canvassers, by either law or protocol, HAS to have two Democrats and two Republicans or if Whitmer can appoint anyone she likes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug B said:
3 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

Lawfare had a good analysis: lawfareblog.com/state-laws-governing-trumps-power-grab-michigan

TLDR: Biden would file a request with the state Court Of Appeals, and the Court would order the Board Of Canvassers to certify the results. Michigan precedent does not allow the Board Of Canvassers to delay certification; the Board's only role is to count votes. Once Wayne County certified, the Board can't go back and question that certification.

I suppose it's possible that the Court would deny Biden's request, or that the Republican board members would resign in protest (apparently they can't certify if they don't have 4 members), which would cause further delays.

Heard on CNN this morning (in the car, didn't see who was talking) that Michigan's governor, Gretchen Whitmer, appoints all members of the state's Board of Canvassers and can also summarily dismiss them at will. So if the two Republicans currently on that board dig in their heels, they can be replaced by the governor. What I don't know is if the Board of Canvassers, by either law or protocol, HAS to have two Democrats and two Republicans or if Whitmer can appoint anyone she likes.

The Lawfare article addresses that scenario. Apparently, the Board is required to be bipartisan, and Whitmer is required to pick a replacement from a list of 3 provided by the Michigan Republican Party. And they could choose to supply a list of only Trump loyalists, or they could just refuse to provide a list altogether. If they refuse to provide a list within 10 days, then Whitmer can pick any Republican who is a former statewide office holder. But that takes us to December 3rd, which is dangerously close to the December 8 deadline.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

The Lawfare article addresses that scenario. Apparently, the Board is required to be bipartisan, and Whitmer is required to pick a replacement from a list of 3 provided by the Michigan Republican Party. And they could choose to supply a list of only Trump loyalists, or they could just refuse to provide a list altogether. If they refuse to provide a list within 10 days, then Whitmer can pick any Republican who is a former statewide office holder. But that takes us to December 3rd, which is dangerously close to the December 8 deadline.

I have been listening to the Michigan State Board of Canvassers hearing. The two Republicans clearly don't want to vote yes to certify and have been asking every guest speaker if there are any provisions or wiggle room within the law for them to vote no. Apparently the law in MI is that any recourse i.e. audits, recounts, and investigations have to occur AFTER the state has certified the election results, so by voting no it would actually hurt their case for trying to overturn the results. I listed to about 10 speakers and they all said they are legally obligated to vote to certify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Pennsylvania might not certify today because 4 pro-Trump counties aren't finished with their canvassing.

That would presumably put Biden at 254 Electors. Nevada would put him at 260 tomorrow. If Pennsylvania isn't wrapped up by next week, then it will be up to Arizona (11 Electors on 11/30) or Wisconsin (10 Electors on 12/1) to finish the job.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming they are legit and not delay tactics, it doesn't sound bad. Only one now needs to go into next week.
"Schuylkill County officials say they will wrap up Tuesday, while Westmoreland County doesn’t expect to finish until next week due to pandemic-driven staffing shortages and a tight state Senate race. Berks and Carbon election boards are scheduled for final certification Wednesday."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still kind of nuts that this stuff can be influenced by political leanings. Clearly that's what happened in Michigan. Millions of votes, and it all can depend on the political leanings of two guys. 

Unless these things get fixed, this ensures we will never have another "clean" election. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...