Jump to content
270soft Forum

Next update thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, PoliticalPundit said:

unless Biden does absolutely horrendous

Ya, at this point it's not clear Biden will be running again. I think he *wants* to run again, but he's already in obvious cognitive decline. 3 years from now?

But you're right - 2024 will to some degree be a referendum on the previous 4 years.

3 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Unless mail in voting and voting was actually and legitimately rigged

My guess is Republican-held state legislatures are going to make significant moves to do what they can to tighten up voting standards.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 867
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If you had never joined this forum, we would still be having political discussions. 

Because that means you're an idiot snowflake who cant take anything even though you brought on a stupid conversation. Ban super, ban anyone, ban me for all I care. Super was commenting on a topic you

Believe it or not, while it may be a minority of people, some would like to see what Patine is talking about be realized, even if it is a small chance. I enjoy K4E and PMI more than I do PI. It's a ma

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

My guess is Republican-held state legislatures are going to make significant moves to do what they can to tighten up voting standards.

What do you mean, "tighten up voting standards," exactly. You realize, "voting standards," has been a highly contentious warzone issue of late, and is not something so simply addressed objectively as you seem to speak of - especially in the current atmosphere of hyper-partisan divide destroying the country and all laws or regulations around voting standards of late ALWAYS enabling more voters who will support their own party (whichever it may be), and restricting those who won't. That casual statement, said so nonchalantly, is a pretty volatile powder keg, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

What do you mean, "tighten up voting standards," exactly. You realize, "voting standards," has been a highly contentious warzone issue of late, and is not something so simply addressed objectively as you seem to speak of - especially in the current atmosphere of hyper-partisan divide destroying the country and all laws or regulations around voting standards of late ALWAYS enabling more voters who will support their own party (whichever it may be), and restricting those who won't. That casual statement, said so nonchalantly, is a pretty volatile powder keg, to be honest.

Avoiding answering the question just because I asked it, @Anthony_270, does not make your statement any less dubious, suspicious, cavalier, and potentially insidious and full of ulterior motive, and WORTHY of being addressed. Remember, one of the most hated and "snake-like," qualities of Stephen Harpers was deciding, in advance, what media outlets would be allowed at his press conferences, and even WHAT QUESTIONS they could ask, so he wouldn't have to answer unpleasant or inconvenient questions, by shutting out who was asking them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Avoiding answering the question just because I asked it, @Anthony_270, does not make your statement any less dubious, suspicious, cavalier, and potentially insidious and full of ulterior motive, and WORTHY of being addressed. Remember, one of the most hated and "snake-like," qualities of Stephen Harpers was deciding, in advance, what media outlets would be allowed at his press conferences, and even WHAT QUESTIONS they could ask, so he wouldn't have to answer unpleasant or inconvenient questions, by shutting out who was asking them.

No one has to answer your questions. If they ignore you, take it as feedback.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anthony_270 said:

No one has to answer your questions. If they ignore you, take it as feedback.

The only feedback I get on these is you have many points-of-view based on false premises, debunked myths, glorification of vapid populists who accomplish little and have little merit as though they're great heroes, support of insidious, obtuse, corrupt, anachronistic, and highly partisan viewpoints (while calling yourself non-partisan), and other zeitgeist-based drivel in bold proclamations as though they were irrefutable, objective fact, backed by highly dubious sources (like noted partisan news- and polling-sites, known conspiracy theorist, and the damned NSA), but can't defend these viewpoints in an actual debate with someone who disagrees sharply with them and is willing to provide actual counter-points and evidence, or even just not completely take your statements at face value, but because you NEVER admit to error, despite the teetering tower of it you have on this site, you resort to these sort of passive-aggressive behaviours when your initial flawed arguments and sources fail. THIS is the feedback I've gotten here - and I am not alone among members of this forum community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

The only feedback I get on these is you have many points-of-view based on false premises, debunked myths, glorification of vapid populists who accomplish little and have little merit as though they're great heroes, support of insidious, obtuse, corrupt, anachronistic, and highly partisan viewpoints (while calling yourself non-partisan), and other zeitgeist-based drivel in bold proclamations as though they were irrefutable, objective fact, backed by highly dubious sources (like noted partisan news- and polling-sites, known conspiracy theorist, and the damned NSA), but can't defend these viewpoints in an actual debate with someone who disagrees sharply with them and is willing to provide actual counter-points and evidence, or even just not completely take your statements at face value, but because you NEVER admit to error, despite the teetering tower of it you have on this site, you resort to these sort of passive-aggressive behaviours when your initial flawed arguments and sources fail. THIS is the feedback I've gotten here - and I am not alone among members of this forum community.

I can't block you as I am admin. Please cease and desist.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

No one has to answer your questions. If they ignore you, take it as feedback.

Let’s remember this same exact poster harassed me for 5+ posts after a nearly identical progression  happened. Just ban this poster since it clearly doesn’t get the message.

or just wait till they keep attacking you while you ignore them another 4 posts or so 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

What do you mean, "tighten up voting standards," exactly. You realize, "voting standards," has been a highly contentious warzone issue of late, and is not something so simply addressed objectively as you seem to speak of - especially in the current atmosphere of hyper-partisan divide destroying the country and all laws or regulations around voting standards of late ALWAYS enabling more voters who will support their own party (whichever it may be), and restricting those who won't. That casual statement, said so nonchalantly, is a pretty volatile powder keg, to be honest.

I can only speak for my home state of Minnesota, but yes the regulations must be changed to make everyone who feels disenfranchised some confidence that their vote really mattered and counted. A few weeks prior to the election I placed an online order at Taco Bell and when I got their I did not give the same name that is on my account Jake vs. Jacob and I was forced to show my Id to get my order, but when I went to vote all I had to do was say my name so they could check if I was on the list and boom. I got my ballot and voted it and put it into the machine.  Why should picking up a Taco Bell order come with more security than arguably one of the most important duty you have as a citizen? Not only that in Minnesota if you register more than 21 days prior to an election you have to show no proof of who you are or you legally live there. Also you do not have to provide an address to register to vote in Minnesota, a PO box is sufficient. So if you feel @Patine that having those laws as lax as they are is conducive of a free and fair election then well we have to agree to disagree, but to me and many other people we all feel that there needs to be simple and concise reforms to voting and tracking of ballots. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

I can only speak for my home state of Minnesota, but yes the regulations must be changed to make everyone who feels disenfranchised some confidence that their vote really mattered and counted. A few weeks prior to the election I placed an online order at Taco Bell and when I got their I did not give the same name that is on my account Jake vs. Jacob and I was forced to show my Id to get my order, but when I went to vote all I had to do was say my name so they could check if I was on the list and boom. I got my ballot and voted it and put it into the machine.  Why should picking up a Taco Bell order come with more security than arguably one of the most important duty you have as a citizen? Not only that in Minnesota if you register more than 21 days prior to an election you have to show no proof of who you are or you legally live there. Also you do not have to provide an address to register to vote in Minnesota, a PO box is sufficient. So if you feel @Patine that having those laws as lax as they are is conducive of a free and fair election then well we have to agree to disagree, but to me and many other people we all feel that there needs to be simple and concise reforms to voting and tracking of ballots. 

The Electoral College has made sure not every vote counts for over two centuries - only votes in the "swing states," de jour truly count. And, regardless, a voter in Alaska or Wyoming has a vote that mathematically means more, individually, than a voter in California, New York, or Texas. And, dissenting votes within a State from the majority that decides it's EV's are rendered utterly irrelevant. Also, the institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates and their platforms, and the deliberate "starving of media oxygen," and unfair laws around advertising, fundraising, getting on State ballots, and having electoral irregularities adjudicated fairly against Duopoly parties, as well as the near impossibility of making debate slots, and the extreme likelihood of a Presidential Election still going to a Duopoly Party even if the Third Party/Independent candidate were to pull the miracle of a plurality of the EV's and vote, but not majority (Jackson in 1824...) makes voters who support those parties not have their votes counted equally. And, the bottleneck, unrepresentative, and easily manipulated Duopoly Party Primaries (not to mention that the last time a sitting President running for re-election faced a serious Primary challenge was 1980 for the Democrats and 1976 for the Republicans), voters who end up detesting the nominee for their party, but cannot bring themselves to vote for the other, do not have their votes matter equally. If making every vote count is a big priority, there are FAR bigger fish to fry that very little political will or appetite seems to exist to redress. Also, historically and statistically, voter suppression by U.S. State laws have harmed "every vote matters, or even being able to be cast," and the realistic outcome of far more elections, than people voting who shouldn't be. Having every vote count in a free and fair election is something I very much agree with, actually, but the worst problems and issues in this regard BY FAR are just being ignored and taken for granted as perfectly acceptable and functional by so many - and THAT is a problem!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts @Anthony_270@Berg2036 on the status of Dominion's voting system moving forward in elections for 2022 and 2024? It won't be changed unless Republicans take over with a significant majority, correct?

 

I'm unfamiliar with the legal process of adjusting voting... I can't imagine it's easy to change an entire company's voting system but rather make it more on a state to state basis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Patine said:

The Electoral College has made sure not every vote counts for over two centuries - only votes in the "swing states," de jour truly count. And, regardless, a voter in Alaska or Wyoming has a vote that mathematically means more, individually, than a voter in California, New York, or Texas. And, dissenting votes within a State from the majority that decides it's EV's are rendered utterly irrelevant. Also, the institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates and their platforms, and the deliberate "starving of media oxygen," and unfair laws around advertising, fundraising, getting on State ballots, and having electoral irregularities adjudicated fairly against Duopoly parties, as well as the near impossibility of making debate slots, and the extreme likelihood of a Presidential Election still going to a Duopoly Party even if the Third Party/Independent candidate were to pull the miracle of a plurality of the EV's and vote, but not majority (Jackson in 1824...) makes voters who support those parties not have their votes counted equally. And, the bottleneck, unrepresentative, and easily manipulated Duopoly Party Primaries (not to mention that the last time a sitting President running for re-election faced a serious Primary challenge was 1980 for the Democrats and 1976 for the Republicans), voters who end up detesting the nominee for their party, but cannot bring themselves to vote for the other, do not have their votes matter equally. If making every vote count is a big priority, there are FAR bigger fish to fry that very little political will or appetite seems to exist to redress. Also, historically and statistically, voter suppression by U.S. State laws have harmed "every vote matters, or even being able to be cast," and the realistic outcome of far more elections, than people voting who shouldn't be. Having every vote count in a free and fair election is something I very much agree with, actually, but the worst problems and issues in this regard BY FAR are just being ignored and taken for granted as perfectly acceptable and functional by so many - and THAT is a problem!

Respectively @Patine That whole post is a red herring. While yes I agree the electoral could be improved, but that discussion is for another time. What I and @Anthony_270 were talking about is the laws regard how to vote and the steps to register to vote. I asked you if you thought that what I described was conducive to a free and fair election I am quite interested in your answer to the question I asked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

What are your thoughts @Anthony_270@Berg2036 on the status of Dominion's voting system moving forward in elections for 2022 and 2024? It won't be changed unless Republicans take over with a significant majority, correct?

 

I'm unfamiliar with the legal process of adjusting voting... I can't imagine it's easy to change an entire company's voting system but rather make it more on a state to state basis. 

Personally I do not think Private companies should have any say in the machines like manufacturing or anything else. I believe that all voting should be by paper ballot and hand counted, yes even in major cities, even if it takes a while to find out results. I believe that it would be quite easy to change what contractor a state uses for their machines and data, but just up to the state legislatures. I am quite interested in what Georgia and Arizona end up doing in the next year leading up to 2022. Its all by what the states want and do not federally but honestly I would like to see the FEC ban dominion just because there was so much discussion about the lack of protections. Something to really note in 2016 the democrats cried foul like no end, in fact Hillary still says that she lost due to cheating but four years later when no meaningful changes happened other than making the laws more lax, with regard to mail in voting and absentee laws and allowing ballots to arrive post election day,  now everything is fine and its perfectly safe. Give me a break, there is no honorable way to move from saying the Russia switch votes for trump and it was stolen in 2016 to in 2020 there is not way there could be any vote switching. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

It won't be changed unless Republicans take over with a significant majority, correct?

What won't be changed? I believe Dominion is used on a state by state basis, so up to the states?

Here, we just use paper ballots. I would recommend that for every jurisdiction.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

Personally I do not think Private companies should have any say in the machines like manufacturing or anything else. I believe that all voting should be by paper ballot and hand counted, yes even in major cities, even if it takes a while to find out results. I believe that it would be quite easy to change what contractor a state uses for their machines and data, but just up to the state legislatures. I am quite interested in what Georgia and Arizona end up doing in the next year leading up to 2022. Its all by what the states want and do not federally but honestly I would like to see the FEC ban dominion just because there was so much discussion about the lack of protections. Something to really note in 2016 the democrats cried foul like no end, in fact Hillary still says that she lost due to cheating but four years later when no meaningful changes happened other than making the laws more lax, with regard to mail in voting and absentee laws and allowing ballots to arrive post election day,  now everything is fine and its perfectly safe. Give me a break, there is no honorable way to move from saying the Russia switch votes for trump and it was stolen in 2016 to in 2020 there is not way there could be any vote switching. 

Here I fully agree. Did you know the first test of electronic voting machines meant for U.S. elections was contracted for a field test with the Mexican Government in their 1988 Presidential and Congressional Elections. This led to the infamous incident where the polling, and initial vote-counting, showed the PAN (who later won for the first time in 2000 under Vincente Fox) leading the long incumbent, dominant, and highly corrupt PRI (who had held office for 59 years straight by that point, and it would be 71 years solid by their 2000 defeat) when suddenly, the whole network of the voting machines went offline, "mysteriously." When they came back online, a PRI victory was hurriedly announced. In an interview long after retirement in the 2000's with an American magazine, the outgoing PRI Mexican President at the that election, Miguel de la Madrid, who had been elected in 1982, said, "yes, those elections were thoroughly rigged. The electric toys were a Godsend for us, or we'd have been beaten." The PRI leadership said he was drunk during the interview. "Caída del sistema," - Spanish for the "system is down," or, "system failure," (and a believed inspiration term for the name of the Armenian-American Industrial Rock band, "System of a Down,") has became a catch-phrase in the Third World, and among many First World NGO's and observers of Third World elections, for a rigged and stolen election. DESPITE this fact, the FEC despite test was, "sufficient," and contracted the machines for future use. NOW THAT sounds dubious and suspect, doesn't it?

2 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

Respectively @Patine That whole post is a red herring. While yes I agree the electoral could be improved, but that discussion is for another time. What I and @Anthony_270 were talking about is the laws regard how to vote and the steps to register to vote. I asked you if you thought that what I described was conducive to a free and fair election I am quite interested in your answer to the question I asked. 

In terms of registration and voter ID, a few things. If things are well organized and set-up, someone should only have to register as a voter in their locale with their own initiative and work if they've moved their permanent residence since the last census or election. Otherwise, they should be, "remembered by the system," as to where they live - like up here in Canada. As for voter ID, here I can only speak second- and third-hand, and often conflicting stories, and seem to vary by State. But I have heard that certain U.S. States, usually ones with Republican-dominated executives and legislatures, have fees and processes for attaining voter ID that are very punishing for the working class, who often can't afford such fees from their shoestring budget and or the time to sit patiently in government registry offices when they work two or three jobs with a spouse who does the same, in a two-income family, just to keep body-and-soul together, and said State Governments have no real programs to aid such people. Since such people TEND to vote Democrat, a partisan slant to such laws could be CONTRUED. I believe the States controlling voter qualifications was a mistake from the start, but the Founding Fathers moreso seemed to see a Union of Sovereign States in Free Association than a Solid, Single Nation - and a lot of U.S. history has suffered from that, and many of it's worst injustices, but I digress. "Tightening up voter standards," as @Anthony_270 put it, sounds like such a scheme to compound the error and make these issues more difficult based on social class - and, possibly, de facto if not de jure, other demographics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

What won't be changed? I believe Dominion is used on a state by state basis, so up to the states?

Here, we just use paper ballots. I would recommend that for every jurisdiction.

We don't live in U.S. States, Anthony, and Canadian Provinces aren't allowed to contract with Dominion. They're officially forbidden to do so. :S

But I agree with paper ballots, fully. Read my informative post on where voting machines used in the U.S. were tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting numbers from recent Suffolk.

Do you want Trump to run in 2024?
Yes: 59%
No: 29%
Undecided: 12%

Would you vote for him in the GOP primary if he ran in 2024?
Yes: 76%
No: 12%
Undecided: 12%

Would you vote for him in the general?
Yes: 85%
No: 8%
Undecided: 7%

This tracks my intuitions about Trump. Although a strong majority want him to run, there's a significant proportion who would support him in the primaries if he ran but don't really want him to run (17% according to the poll numbers).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anthony_270 said:

Interesting numbers from recent Suffolk.

Do you want Trump to run in 2024?
Yes: 59%
No: 29%
Undecided: 12%

Would you vote for him in the GOP primary if he ran in 2024?
Yes: 76%
No: 12%
Undecided: 12%

Would you vote for him in the general?
Yes: 85%
No: 8%
Undecided: 7%

This tracks my intuitions about Trump. Although a strong majority want him to run, there's a significant proportion who would support him in the primaries if he ran but don't really want him to run (17% according to the poll numbers).

What kind of samples does Suffolk poll, out of curiosity? I'm not familiar with them. These numbers seem like they must come from a very biased sampling source, and/or very loaded and restricted in allowed answers, questions to produce such percentages, or even close. This is a serious question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

So, a poll showing how many people were hoodwinked and conned into voting for a self-absorbed showman who accomplished nothing lasting of of benefit to the nation (except for a few, I will concede, such as cutting down on - but not outright ending - military adventurism and being the first U.S. President to personally meet a North Korean leader while in office - not including Clinton's post-office endeavour), and who left the nation worse-off and more divided than when he started, after promising to restore greatness as a campaign plank - who haven't statistically learned these facts and want to go back to an old mistake to stop the mistake of Biden instead of moving beyond both failed old geezers and getting behind someone new and promising with a REAL vision and who knows what they're doing and CARES about the people and nation, is a statistic worth showing off for some end or other? Maybe how many Americans just won't learn from previous errors in judgement and move on, and these ways of learning and growing should be emphasized by the U.S. Department of Education early on in schooling, perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

Interesting numbers from recent Suffolk.

Do you want Trump to run in 2024?
Yes: 59%
No: 29%
Undecided: 12%

Would you vote for him in the GOP primary if he ran in 2024?
Yes: 76%
No: 12%
Undecided: 12%

Would you vote for him in the general?
Yes: 85%
No: 8%
Undecided: 7%

This tracks my intuitions about Trump. Although a strong majority want him to run, there's a significant proportion who would support him in the primaries if he ran but don't really want him to run (17% according to the poll numbers).

VERY interested in this speech he's giving Sunday. The silence fro his camp since inauguration reminds me so much after Obama made fun of him at the Correspondent dinner. An angry Trump is the worst Trump to go against. the king of comebacks. 

 

I'll probably take the betting odds on Trump vs 84 year old Biden.  

And if he runs for the GOP, he'll only be helped by loony tune never Trumper's going against him. Democrats better hope he runs unopposed. 

 

But more than anything I'll take the odds he bats 100% in the 2022 elections with candidates he endorses. Isn't he at like 98% success rating w election endorsements? I could be wrong. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

VERY interested in this speech he's giving Sunday. The silence fro his camp since inauguration reminds me so much after Obama made fun of him at the Correspondent dinner. An angry Trump is the worst Trump to go against. the king of comebacks. 

 

I'll probably take the betting odds on Trump vs 84 year old Biden.  

And if he runs for the GOP, he'll only be helped by loony tune never Trumper's going against him. Democrats better hope he runs unopposed. 

 

But more than anything I'll take the odds he bats 100% in the 2022 elections with candidates he endorses. Isn't he at like 98% success rating w election endorsements? I could be wrong. 

Moreso making a generally-directed commented despite the necessity of having to play off your quote here, but Americans, regardless of party affiliation, would be better off leaving these two codgers and their failed ideologies and ideas (and circles of cronies and sycophants surrounding them who parrot them as if they were the words of Pantheist masters on the mountain), and embracing fresh new leaders and ideas that don't already have a track record of failure. Do Americans REALLY want to shackle their political system for eons like the corrupt political disaster in Argentina, where all politics is STILL based on a Peronist vs. anti-Peronist divide - even though Juan Peron died in 1975. Why do so many people want to beat these two dead horses into another race, and not move on to new leaders and a real future? I can't understand the mentality? Can someone explain this to me? This is a serious question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Moreso making a generally-directed commented despite the necessity of having to play off your quote here, but Americans, regardless of party affiliation, would be better off leaving these two codgers and their failed ideologies and ideas (and circles of cronies and sycophants surrounding them who parrot them as if they were the words of Pantheist masters on the mountain), and embracing fresh new leaders and ideas that don't already have a track record of failure. Do Americans REALLY want to shackle their political system for eons like the corrupt political disaster in Argentina, where all politics is STILL based on a Peronist vs. anti-Peronist divide - even though Juan Peron died in 1975. Why do so many people want to beat these two dead horses into another race, and not move on to new leaders and a real future? I can't understand the mentality? Can someone explain this to me? This is a serious question.

I thought you blocked/were ignoring me?

 

@Anthony_270 are we back to having this be a free for all, because I'm more than happy to respond to multiple posts from this person. Like, EXTREMELY ready. 

Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...