Politics

[IdaRam]

Business may be looking up...

... but will there be enough accommodations?
Doubtful

 

[Brent in Az]

A win for religious freedom, a blow to tyrannical Cuomo. Turncoat Justice Roberts, sides with the Liberals.

https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/photos/a.10159587164165354/10166596018390354

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I'm not an American (though my wife and kids are). So no dog in this hunt. But perhaps an outsider's perspective might add something to the debate?

I would be way more worried about this election result if I were a Democrat than if I were a Republican. While it's pretty clear that the Republicans lost the White House, it doesn't seem that their policies lost. It looks like the Republicans will keep the Senate and the Democrats have a reduced majority in the House. This is hardly a victory for Democratic policies.

As well, it's important to note that more Blacks, hispanics and visible minorities voted for Trump this time than in 2016. That should send a pretty sobering message to Democrats on the two coasts.

What seems to have happened, admittedly from afar, is that many people didn't like Trump for a whole bunch of reasons, but mostly personal ones. But many disliked Democrat policies more than they disliked Trump, and thus held their noses and voted for Trump. In effect, Trump's personality, likely with the COVID issues and his reaction to them, cost him the election. So it's less a case of Biden winning than of Trump losing. If I were a Democrat, my greatest fear would be a more likeable version of Trump with the same or similar policies. And given Trump's very strong showing, it's likely that whoever is the nominee in 2024 will take that to heart. Less Twitter ranting and more fundamental change.

On a more important issue, it's the Democrats who are threatening to destroy the American political system, not the Republicans. Yes, Trump refusing to concede and not providing evidence of voter fraud on a scale substantial enough to change the outcome is not helpful, but that's him, not the system. A focus on this should help the Republicans going forward. The Founding Fathers were incredibly prescient - they knew that pure representation by population would inevitably fracture the country and lead to its demise. So they created a senate which added half the states plus one to the majority needed to pass legislation (and an electoral college). So while the Democrats can go on all they want about Biden winning with the largest number of votes for a challenger in history, those votes principally came from New York and California (and states to which Californians are moving). If residents of those states believe (as they seem to) that any rational person, wherever they are, should think and vote like them, then Democrats are in fact doomed to defeat in what really matters - the ability to enact their policies into law. A president can do a lot by executive order, but he can't fundamentally change the laws of the country, and the next president can reverse executive orders. Laws are (often much) more difficult to change.

So while it would have been wonderful to win the White House again, that's a battle, not the war (contrary to what many seem to think). The war is, in reality, one for the heart and soul fo the country, and that's a long term affair. And in that war, from where I sit, it looks like the Republicans are pretty well positioned, if they play their cards right.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, there are still broad sunlit uplands ahead for Republicans.

Great summary. So who is your pick for ticket in 2024?

A win for religious freedom, a blow to tyrannical Cuomo. Turncoat Justice Roberts, sides with the Liberals.

https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/photos/a.10159587164165354/10166596018390354

thank God for Amy, literally.

 

[Wheels]

A win for religious freedom, a blow to tyrannical Cuomo. Turncoat Justice Roberts, sides with the Liberals.

https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/photos/a.10159587164165354/10166596018390354

"Government is not free to disregard the 1st Amendment in times of crisis"

Nice to have a court that still believes this.

 

[Brent in Az]

"Government is not free to disregard the 1st Amendment in times of crisis"

Nice to have a court that still believes this.

Only 5 out of 9 in the court believes it. I find that that lack of constitutionality disturbing. More so, if the corruptocrats get the opportunity to stack the Court with judicial activists.

 

[Wheels]

As we celebrate Thanksgiving today, it is interesting that 400 years ago this month the Mayflower Compact was signed, outlining the first written "just and equal laws" on this continent.


'".........And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony;....."

 

[Brent in Az]

I can imagine, that when the Native Americans saw Columbus, and the longboats rowing ashore, they said to each other, "What could possibly go wrong"?

 

[spike.t]

One can only wish, but I doubt it.

Yup....too many muppets with a total lack of brain cells and the capability of thinking for themselves....just roll over and let the nice government look after them and keep them safe....fkn imbeciles....

 

[Timbo]

Based on that statement, shouldn't the Democrats up for reelection in the House &Senate, be voted out for their personality & conduct over the last 4 years? It was exponentially more despicable than many of the things that Trump has said or done!

Or.... haven't you been paying attention?

Did you note I simply responded acknowledging an already posted view point?

Or........ weren't you paying attention?

When Trump got elected, they whined about Russian involvement, now that he's lost, everyone's banging on about electoral fraud! Only one thing is certain in US politics - the loser will always cry foul.

 

[Timbo]

And even with the cheating, fraud, media manipulation, etc Trump still received seventy-something million votes? More than have been cast for any presidential candidate prior I believe. So, a bit of a stretch to say Trump beat himself because of his abrasive personality and general dislike. Simply not the case.
When there is 95%, 100%, 150%, and in some cases 300% voter turn out, it would seem prudent to wait at least until after December 14th to see which results actually get certified and how things play out in the courts. And possibly the halls of Congress. Unlike the lame stream media who have tripped all over themselves in a rush to call the election, and ultimately declare Biden President Elect. Very likely we will see the Supreme Court involved in the coming days.
Stay tuned it’s about to get interesting.

And I suppose in the next US election it will again be reported about a candidate's popularity having "the most votes ever cast in history" - forgetting of course that in the years between elections the US population would have, inevitably, grown larger by that point anyway.

 

[Brent in Az]

Did you note I simply responded acknowledging an already posted view point?

Or........ weren't you paying attention?

When Trump got elected, they whined about Russian involvement, now that he's lost, everyone's banging on about electoral fraud! Only one thing is certain in US politics - the loser will always cry foul.

For 4 years, the Democrats tried to frame Trump for colluding with Russia. They had no proof. Zero.Zip.Nada

The fraud in this election cycle is there for all to see.

Trump received more votes then any sitting President in history. Pretty good numbers for a President that many claim was not well liked....eh?

Biden, spent most of his time in hiding, because he is a bumbling fool behind a microphone, and his rallies could hardly fill a parking lot. He received a historic 80 million votes????

This election was filled with numbers that don't add up, along with many statistical impossibilities.

Anybody that thinks Biden won this election, fair and square, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that I would like to sell you. Cheap!

 

[Brent in Az]

Cuomo, blames the conservative majority in SCOTUS for the injunction.

Well....no shit, Captain Obvious.

 

[Timbo]

For 4 years, the Democrats tried to frame Trump for colluding with Russia. They had no proof. Zero.Zip.Nada

The fraud in this election cycle is there for all to see.

Trump received more votes then any sitting President in history. Pretty good numbers for a President that many claim was not well liked....eh?

Biden, spent most of his time in hiding, because he is a bumbling fool behind a microphone, and his rallies could hardly fill a parking lot. He received a historic 80 million votes????

This election was filled with numbers that don't add up, along with many statistical impossibilities.

Anybody that thinks Biden won this election, fair and square, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that I would like to sell you. Cheap!

As I said, in the next election there will undoutedly be more voters by virtue of the fact that the US population would have inevitably increased - just as there are more people living in the US than 4, 10 or 20 years ago - so your claim Trump having received more votes than any sitting President is just empty.

But regarding voter fraud, an author on the subject had this to say:

"....the battle over Florida ripped a veil off a dysfunctional system and offered an opportunity not just for meaningful electoral reform – a slow and frustrating process – but also for new forms of political warfare unseen since the darkest days of the segregation era in which the electoral process itself became fair game, particularly for the Republicans.

It began, perhaps, when the hand recount of punch card ballots requested by Al Gore and the Democrats – something both parties had routinely pressed for in previous contested elections – was recast by many leading Republicans in their talking points as a form of “slow-motion grand larceny”.

Then, in Missouri, Republican Senator Kit Bond took one look at African American voters in overcrowded precincts in St Louis casting ballots beyond the official poll closing time – something that has since become standard practice in many states – and denounced what he called a “major criminal enterprise”.

Soon, a narrative took hold that Democrats were habitual vote-stealers – something that was indubitably true in the days of Boss Tweed in 1860s New York but now took the form of a racist dog-whistle because the voters under most suspicion were black or Latino. Within a few years, politicians such as Sarah Palin were openly distinguishing “real Americans” – meaning white Republicans – from the rest, and states under Republican control were passing voter ID laws to crack down on a problem – voter impersonation fraud – that experts have repeatedly found to be rare to non-existent.
As the federal courts have now begun to find, the effect of these laws has in fact been to discriminate against groups of voters – the transient, the elderly, students and the poor – who are much more likely to support Democrats.

Given the level of mistrust, rank-and-file members of both parties have increasingly come to define democracy by the elections their side wins, and any other outcome as prima facie evidence of theft and corruption."

- Andrew Gumbel, author, quoted from an article in The Guardian, 25th Oct 2016. (And yes, fire away about how The Guardian is anti Republican - but even if so, the author's research on the subject is still his.)

 

[Brent in Az]

The population growth rate in the USA, is approx 1.7 million per year. Approx half of that number is new births, and half is immigration.
Those news births can't vote for 18 years, and immigrants can't vote until citizenship is legally achieved.
New voters trickle in, dead voters trickle out. There are checks and balances.
If you do the math based on percentages of registered voters who voted for each President, what do you come up with?

 

[IdaRam]

And I suppose in the next US election it will again be reported about a candidate's popularity having "the most votes ever cast in history" - forgetting of course that in the years between elections the US population would have, inevitably, grown larger by that point anyway.

Hi Timbo, we’ll probably agree to disagree which is fine. We’re both entitled to our own opinion.
However, if we accept the vote counts from the 2020 Presidential election, which I don’t at this point but just assuming they are correct and legitimate, vs the 2016 election totals the U.S. population would have had to increased something on the order of 44 million people in 4 years for your logic to even begin to make any sense.
In 2016 Trump received about 63 million votes.
In 2020 Trump received about 74 million votes.
11 million more people voted for Trump in this election than last election. If that was due to an increase in population, and assuming the vote of that increased population was split 50/50 between Trump and Biden, and assuming a FULL 50% of that increased population was eligible to vote, and 100% of them DID actually vote... Well, you get the picture.
I just don’t believe your argument holds water. The fact remains 11 million more people were willing to vote for Trump in 2020 than 2016 which suggest to me that he couldn’t have alienated THAT many people due to his demeanor and personality.
I do agree that a number of people don’t care for Trump. But they sure as hell love his policies!
But let me ask you a question. Do you believe the Democrats knowingly cheated in an effort to get Biden/Harris election?

 

[Royal27]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332155514386599937

 

[LivingTheDream]

As I said, in the next election there will undoutedly be more voters by virtue of the fact that the US population would have inevitably increased - just as there are more people living in the US than 4, 10 or 20 years ago - so your claim Trump having received more votes than any sitting President is just empty.

But regarding voter fraud, an author on the subject had this to say:

"....the battle over Florida ripped a veil off a dysfunctional system and offered an opportunity not just for meaningful electoral reform – a slow and frustrating process – but also for new forms of political warfare unseen since the darkest days of the segregation era in which the electoral process itself became fair game, particularly for the Republicans.

It began, perhaps, when the hand recount of punch card ballots requested by Al Gore and the Democrats – something both parties had routinely pressed for in previous contested elections – was recast by many leading Republicans in their talking points as a form of “slow-motion grand larceny”.

Then, in Missouri, Republican Senator Kit Bond took one look at African American voters in overcrowded precincts in St Louis casting ballots beyond the official poll closing time – something that has since become standard practice in many states – and denounced what he called a “major criminal enterprise”.

Soon, a narrative took hold that Democrats were habitual vote-stealers – something that was indubitably true in the days of Boss Tweed in 1860s New York but now took the form of a racist dog-whistle because the voters under most suspicion were black or Latino. Within a few years, politicians such as Sarah Palin were openly distinguishing “real Americans” – meaning white Republicans – from the rest, and states under Republican control were passing voter ID laws to crack down on a problem – voter impersonation fraud – that experts have repeatedly found to be rare to non-existent.
As the federal courts have now begun to find, the effect of these laws has in fact been to discriminate against groups of voters – the transient, the elderly, students and the poor – who are much more likely to support Democrats.

Given the level of mistrust, rank-and-file members of both parties have increasingly come to define democracy by the elections their side wins, and any other outcome as prima facie evidence of theft and corruption."

- Andrew Gumbel, author, quoted from an article in The Guardian, 25th Oct 2016. (And yes, fire away about how The Guardian is anti Republican - but even if so, the author's research on the subject is still his.)

We can disagree on this and I am sure I can create a counter argument for all of Mr. Gumbel points. Because his research is obviously slanted.

But if ID laws are the based on racist voter suppression, why is an ID needed to buy alcohol, tobacco, or get on a plane? That whole argument is nonsense.

Just out of curiosity how does voting work in Australia? I honeslty have no idea and would like to understand the differences.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Zambezi]

As I said, in the next election there will undoutedly be more voters by virtue of the fact that the US population would have inevitably increased - just as there are more people living in the US than 4, 10 or 20 years ago - so your claim Trump having received more votes than any sitting President is just empty.

But regarding voter fraud, an author on the subject had this to say:

"....the battle over Florida ripped a veil off a dysfunctional system and offered an opportunity not just for meaningful electoral reform – a slow and frustrating process – but also for new forms of political warfare unseen since the darkest days of the segregation era in which the electoral process itself became fair game, particularly for the Republicans.

It began, perhaps, when the hand recount of punch card ballots requested by Al Gore and the Democrats – something both parties had routinely pressed for in previous contested elections – was recast by many leading Republicans in their talking points as a form of “slow-motion grand larceny”.

Then, in Missouri, Republican Senator Kit Bond took one look at African American voters in overcrowded precincts in St Louis casting ballots beyond the official poll closing time – something that has since become standard practice in many states – and denounced what he called a “major criminal enterprise”.

Soon, a narrative took hold that Democrats were habitual vote-stealers – something that was indubitably true in the days of Boss Tweed in 1860s New York but now took the form of a racist dog-whistle because the voters under most suspicion were black or Latino. Within a few years, politicians such as Sarah Palin were openly distinguishing “real Americans” – meaning white Republicans – from the rest, and states under Republican control were passing voter ID laws to crack down on a problem – voter impersonation fraud – that experts have repeatedly found to be rare to non-existent.
As the federal courts have now begun to find, the effect of these laws has in fact been to discriminate against groups of voters – the transient, the elderly, students and the poor – who are much more likely to support Democrats.

Given the level of mistrust, rank-and-file members of both parties have increasingly come to define democracy by the elections their side wins, and any other outcome as prima facie evidence of theft and corruption."

- Andrew Gumbel, author, quoted from an article in The Guardian, 25th Oct 2016. (And yes, fire away about how The Guardian is anti Republican - but even if so, the author's research on the subject is still his.)

It would be interesting to see how Gumble would see what is happening now? He has two options:

Either he tells the truth that this election stinks to high heaven and corruption by the Dems was rampant. Or he continues with his obvious left leaning stance. If he choose the truth then kudos to him, it may mean he has developed a single bone of credibility. If he opts to call this election fair then it just proves that his words on paper should come in two ply and be sold in the toiletry section.

As for voter ID: If the rest of the world (including third world countries) can manage to insist on voters actually being registered legal voters, then why can't it happen in the US? I mean that's security of the election 101. With regard to the Fed court saying that the transient, elderly,students and the poor are affected and that they are "much more likely" to vote Dem: well the elderly I would say are much more likely to vote Rep as they come from a time when this sort swamp behaviour was not tolerated. Students: I seriously think you should raise your voting age to 21 as the quality of the students/activist brains I've seen over the last 4 years is embarrassing to the US. Hopefully they would have matured a bit by 21. The transient: If that means hobos and the homeless then that figure is so small that it would be statistically insignificant. If it means transient voters as those who move around the country for work then I would say they are more than likely Rep voters as they actually like to work for a living. And yes the poor will vote Dem predominantly as the Dems give them free stuff. But if you can get off your ass to go get your free stuff you can get off your ass to obtain picture ID.

If you can't tell who is a registered legal voter how can you have a free and fair election. Like Trump said just yesterday: this election is an embarrassment, it's like a third world country!

 

[spike.t]