Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s reassuring because someone actually examined the ballot before adding it to the tally. Since you have both Republican and Democratic poll watchers, the rejection of your ballot for ideological reasons seems to me a little farfetched.
What no one from either Party ever does, whether it’s yakking about voter suppression in the case of the Democrats, or voter fraud in the case of the Republicans, is talk to the actual people who conduct elections – registrars, local volunteers, very few of whom are engaged in any kind of large scale conspiracy. Nor do they consider the poll watchers from both parties on hand.
I learn today from Commentary that up to 10% of ballots in every election mark only the top candidate on the ballot, leaving the rest blank. That’s true in every election. There is nothing at all out of the ordinary in the number of bulleted ballots noted in the election.
I also learn that the greatest swing in recent memory on a recount has been 1100 votes, far from the plurality that Biden received.
I learn further that ballots in Pennsylvania received post 11/3 have been separated since they are obviously the possible subject of litigation, and there are fewer of them than the Biden majority. That’s actually what you expect conscientious people to do, and most volunteer election workers are there because they are conscientous.
In short, there is major disinformation swirling around, started by one acolyte, and echoed by others, that Trump is actively fomenting. We are seeing the man at his absolute worst.
I’ve been here before. You’ll recall the paranoia of Democrats about Ohio voting in 2004, voting machines and the like. And let us not forget the idiocy of 2000,in which one candidate urged that ballots that had never been tallied before somehow be tallied this time, but only in the areas in which he ran strong – and somehow the Democrats have persuaded themselves that the OTHER candidate stole the election.
So I don’t think I’m particularly partisan. I’m simply looking at the down-to-earth reality rather than sticking with high concept.
Time to start critiquing Biden. As the distorting symbol of Trump disappears, some of the better aspects of his policy come into view. I am particularly concerned that he will erase the progress the US has made in the Middle East, resurrecting the Palestinian cause and re-approaching Iran. That won’t do.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
That surely would be suspicious, but who is this guy? And where did he get his statistical analysis? And why hasn’t been cited by any more reputable sources?
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
The litigation will almost certainly backfire (as it has in Philadelphia), because fraud on a scale sufficient to change the outcome is a logistical impossibility.
Concede gracefully, and live to fight another day. Only for Trump . . . there isn’t going to be another day. The voters sent a message of moderation on Election Day. Welcome back to the Party of George Will and Mitt Romney, with a nod to the hawks.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
I’ve kinda given up on this crusade, until I can figure someway out of the money dilemma. Piketty estimates there are six to eight times productive wealth as there is ibcone. But there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of times of money equivalents – glamor stocks, for one, leveraged debt instruments, stock options, collectible, etc. Coping with that is way beyond my expertise. Is a puzzlement.
But as to the NR article, two points.
First, the concept of a wealth tax as a surtax, particularly at the State level, won’t work at all. What I have been advocating is changing the annual tax base from income to wealth. That does work, if the money problem can be solved.
Second, I’ll deal with all the complexity and practicality objections the short way rather than the long. Whatever the complexity, it’s a helluva lot simpler than an income tax. You’re the accountant. Which is easier, a P/L or balance sheet? Doing an annusl wealth tax is a snap. No computation of profit or loss on transactions. No involbed determination of basis. No issues with annualization. No straddle gimmicks.
Just assess your assets. Not that tough. Lenders do it, The IRS requires it in estate tax returns. There are valuation methods for just about every asset.
Then net liabilities against the asset base, and there you are. I did sample computations on one of the blog posts.
The real problem that NR has – and George Soros, and Barbara Streisand, and all of the others – this is one issue on which they all join hands – is that this is one progressive tax that actually IS progressive. Horrible.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
The operative word is ‘center’. The question is complicated by the fact that the center has shifted much to the Left in my lifetime. No one (speaking slightly hyperbolically) believes a woman’s place is in the home any more, or that homosexuality is taboo, or in actual racism. Everyone did, when I was a kid.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
I could make all sorts of cheap shots, but actually that is rather reassuring. It shows that someone is paying attention. In any case, one less vote for the Peace and Freedom Party.
I am sure there are irregularities all over the country. How could there not be? Tens of millions of votes cast by fallible people, and received by other fallible people.
Wholesale fraud on a scale sufficient to change the outcome? Logistically impossible. I think I’ll do a pre-blog post on that.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
This is my own take. This was a surprisingly bad night for the Democrats.
They hoped to flip the Senate. In the end, they flipped only one seat (I believe Tillis will hold on). (If there’d been a stronger head of ticket, John James might have won. That’s very disappointing.) All of the incumbents won, including Susan Collins.
They hoped to pick up a dozen seats in the House. They lost five.
The GOP kept control of all the State houses they now control.
Prop 16, in the most liberal State in the Union, crashed and burned.
This with the Great Satan as a unifying target.
I do believe the vast majority of Americans of all ethnicities are centrist-Left. They’re believers in racial and gender equity, but not to the point where they approve of riots or hysterical language. Unless the Democratic Party comes back to earth – and there are no signs of it – its future is bleak.
(P.S. How do you riot BEFORE you know election results? The righteously indignant of Portland managed to do just that.)
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
I’ve been voting absentee in California for more than ten years. Lots of Californians do. It’s done on request.
The ballot is sent to the voters’ registered address, you mark it, place it in an envelope, sign it, and that’s that.
There’s no magic in polling places that immunizes them from fraud. The written, mail-in ballot is in many ways a lot safer and surer.
What is happening is in some ways a lot more ominous. A lot of people who would not normally inconvenience themselves going to the polls. By and large, I think they vote Democrat.
All of the counts are being observed by dozens of poll watchers of both parties. The slow switch to Biden in Wisconsin and Michigan is accounted for by the heavily urban character of the precincts being counted.
I am sure there are fouled ballots and what not, because in an election with tens of millions of ballots cast, that will happen. But wholesale fraud? I doubt it.
The sorest loser of all time remains Al Gore. But Trump has joined the club, big time.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
The continued tally puts James’ lead back up to 23,000, so he MIGHT hang on. Let us pray.
I don’t see the Democrats stealing the election at all, any more than Everett Dirksen stole elections back in the day, when downstate Illinois returns undercut Chicago majorities. The openness of the counting process, poll watchers on both sides, is reassuring – even open media coverage. It’s a damn sight better than Broward County.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
I’ve had no problem with a-pox-on-both-your-houses attitude sine day one.
The MSM, and particularly the Times, Post, and CNN, have been rabid since day one. Inexcusable.
On the other hand, Trump could have defused this easily. He controls the dialog with tweets. He chooses not to – either he’s too narcissistic to control himself, or (more likely) he feels the contentiousness is helpful to him.
He’s wrong. He doesn’t have a bad record, and he could have run on it (always assuming a common sense about covid that he did not display). But Trump likes driving the opposition into a fury. That’s almost the worst quality a President could have.
The hell with both sides.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
The Covid pandemic should have made Trump’s road to a second term a lot smoother. The pandemic has no allies – it’s not as if there is anyone who’ll be offended. All he really had to do was say ‘there, there’ and champion various remedial actions. He doesn’t have to take a stand. Most of the actual executive decisions are local.
Instead, in classic Trumpian fashion, he descended to personalities. A lot of the criticism was grossly unfair – the MSM has been rabid. But that’s the heat in this particular kitchen. In four years, Trump never got used to that.
So instead of genial neutrality, encouraging everybody, there he is, sneering, catcalling, taking issue with stuff that should be non-controversial. And thus Donald Trump manages to create an issue where there is none, and shoots himself in the foot.
A classic example of one of Murphy’s Laws, that nature always sides with the hidden flaw. Not that this one is all that hidden. Trump couldn’t put his narcissism to one side, even when all he had to do to prevail was shut up.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
I expect Biden to win, and rather hope for a blowout, as this is not a good year for an election controversy.
Does that mean the nation is turning Left? There are serious issues about health care and wealth that imply that. But the crazy progressive agenda? I don’t think so. I think the incredible obnoxiousness of Trump has produced an enemy-of-my-enemy alliance that conceals a lot of division.
In any case the sooner gone, the better, hopefully with minimum controversy.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
Mick,
That’s a pretty cogent analysis. I am curious how all the formatting ended up visible. That stuff interests me.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
Well, to call them ‘thoughts’ is generous.
When the other guy is supposed to have uninterrupted time, you give him uninterrupted time. Even kindergartners understand that.
Then you have these long garrulous twisted sentences, endless self interruptions, etc.
The worst that can be said for Biden was that a couple of times he took the bait. But mostly he handled the provocations with quite a bit of poise and composure. He did well.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
The big concern about Joe Biden is that he no longer has the personal force necessary to occupy the Oval Office.
Well, maybe not, but not on tonight’s showing. He looked very Presidential.
Trump looked . . . impossible.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
