Election 2020 - Page 117 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Beren
#15094064
You're definitetey a pro-Israel devil-worshipping Trumpite faking Christian, @Hindsite, and with your absurd and exaggerated character you could be an agent as well. You wouldn't be the only one here for sure. :evil:
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15094068
Doug64 wrote:@Drlee You think I lie about my opinions and decisions, why are you bothering to respond to my posts?


I disagree, I think the way the Electoral College forces candidates’ support to be wide as well as deep and makes election fraud in presidential elections so difficult are benefits rather than defects, however unintended they may have been.


Look Doug between the electoral college system, gerrymandering voting districts like the state of Texas does consistently and other states do? Making it harder to vote for people with absentee ballots? It is going to be not a democracy but some kind of a joke. The USA is questioned by other nations who did not know the USA doesn't go for the largest amount of popular votes like many other republics do in Latin America, Europe and Africa and Asia. When the USA is following a system that is not about majority votes? And people who keep loving that horror of lack of ethics two party horrific system? In the USA? No, you will not only lose in the moral higher ground of democracy but in credibility and ability to interfere and condemn human rights violations, sham election and justice systems. If you have a nation with sham systems you won't have a moral leg to stand in when events unfold around the world and the USA wants to come up with some stupid foreign policy citing 'democracy demands our response" or some other joke of an excuse to steal some resource or get rid of some popularly elected leader that is on the Left and not pro corporations and banks.

It is really bad. But you choose your own karma.

I won't be crying over lost power in the world.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15094071
Hindsite wrote:Another thing is that she is a Bernie Sanders supporter.


Get a life H.S. ……. she is a supporter of $ ….. period. I would love to see the nice satchel of $100 bills she got for saying that Biden "penetrated" her over a quarter century ago :eek: . A real great reason for a few million morons to vote for trump. Oh, by the way, do you have any news about trump's plan (you may want to pass this on to Donald: "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.") for providing affordable health care to all Americans? :lol:
By Doug64
#15094082
Tainari88 wrote:Look Doug between the electoral college system, gerrymandering voting districts like the state of Texas does consistently and other states do? Making it harder to vote for people with absentee ballots? It is going to be not a democracy but some kind of a joke. The USA is questioned by other nations who did not know the USA doesn't go for the largest amount of popular votes like many other republics do in Latin America, Europe and Africa and Asia. When the USA is following a system that is not about majority votes? And people who keep loving that horror of lack of ethics two party horrific system? In the USA? No, you will not only lose in the moral higher ground of democracy but in credibility and ability to interfere and condemn human rights violations, sham election and justice systems. If you have a nation with sham systems you won't have a moral leg to stand in when events unfold around the world and the USA wants to come up with some stupid foreign policy citing 'democracy demands our response" or some other joke of an excuse to steal some resource or get rid of some popularly elected leader that is on the Left and not pro corporations and banks.

It is really bad. But you choose your own karma.

I won't be crying over lost power in the world.

I have no problem with protecting the integrity of our elections by restricting mail-in ballots, they are one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. Beyond that, you didn't respond to my point that the Electoral College makes effective voter fraud in presidential elections much more difficult. And yes, in the US the president is elected by the citizens of the several states rather than the United States, and I have no problem at all, at all, giving smaller states a smidgen more influence in close elections, so that the large states aren't the only ones that matter--just as I have no problem with the smallest state having the same representation as the largest state in the Senate. I am grateful that the US is a constitutional federal democratic republic, so the majority doesn't always get what it wants. It has given us enough stability that we are the oldest surviving democratic government in the world.
By Pants-of-dog
#15094083
Doug64 wrote:I have no problem with protecting the integrity of our elections by restricting mail-in ballots, they are one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud.


Can you provide any examples of this happening?

Beyond that, you didn't respond to my point that the Electoral College makes effective voter fraud in presidential elections much more difficult. And yes, in the US the president is elected by the citizens of the several states rather than the United States, and I have no problem at all, at all, giving smaller states a smidgen more influence in close elections, so that the large states aren't the only ones that matter--just as I have no problem with the smallest state having the same representation as the largest state in the Senate. I am grateful that the US is a constitutional federal democratic republic, so the majority doesn't always get what it wants.


Like when the majority of voters vote for one candidate, but the other guy gets the win?

It has given us enough stability that we are the oldest surviving democratic government in the world.


I do not think this is true. Iceland and the Isla of Man probably have you beat.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15094090
jimjam wrote:Get a life H.S. ……. she is a supporter of $ ….. period. I would love to see the nice satchel of $100 bills she got for saying that Biden "penetrated" her over a quarter century ago :eek: . A real great reason for a few million morons to vote for trump. Oh, by the way, do you have any news about trump's plan (you may want to pass this on to Donald: "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.") for providing affordable health care to all Americans? :lol:



He said @jimjam that his plan was going to be beautiful. Much better than Obamacare. He will replace it. With 'everybody is covered'. It did not happen? Why not? Because it got hard and complicated and he realized? Big pharma and big health insurance is too powerful for his conman politics. Lol.


By Sivad
#15094095
Doug64 wrote:I have no problem with protecting the integrity of our elections by restricting mail-in ballots, they are one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud.


It depends on how it's set up. If it was done entirely through the US Post Office where anyone could get a ballot on the spot from their mailman just by showing a valid state ID and all third parties were prohibited by law from delivering ballots, the system would actually be more secure than what we have now.

The dems don't want a secure system like that though, the system they're proposing is just an open invitation to voter fraud and ballot tampering.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15094099
Doug64 wrote:I have no problem with protecting the integrity of our elections by restricting mail-in ballots, they are one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. Beyond that, you didn't respond to my point that the Electoral College makes effective voter fraud in presidential elections much more difficult. And yes, in the US the president is elected by the citizens of the several states rather than the United States, and I have no problem at all, at all, giving smaller states a smidgen more influence in close elections, so that the large states aren't the only ones that matter--just as I have no problem with the smallest state having the same representation as the largest state in the Senate. I am grateful that the US is a constitutional federal democratic republic, so the majority doesn't always get what it wants. It has given us enough stability that we are the oldest surviving democratic government in the world.


What do you want people going in person to vote? To get some CoVid 19 and having to wear a mask?

How is that making it highly democratic?

Not letting the majority get what it wants Doug? Only when it favors those total pigs in the Republican party or the corrupt Democrat liberal sellouts with lobbyists influencing legislation over regular working people? No, I don't believe in that at all. For me that is tyranny of a plutocratic class that needs to have its head cut off with majority votes. Period.

So far all stats say voting fraud is very low. Most people have a life and are not interested in voting being a non USA citizen. If one studies US history? There have always been all kinds of restrictions that were aimed to kill off any participation from unwanted voters. It was only white men with property allowed the vote. No Native Americans who were not exactly whole human beings. 3/5ths of one human being. Or only men who can read because ex slaves were never taught to read. Or count how many marbles or jelly beans were in a jar...or women's brains were too dumb to vote. Etc etc. There was always a stupid excuse.

If you live in Puerto Rico the excuse they give you is that as an unincorporated territory you are not protected by the US constitution and the legal language cites "Lack of Anglo-Saxon Principles" because if you speak Spanish the Anglo Saxon mentality doesn't penetrate to the finger voting on the ballot. Those are the insular cases from the SCOTUS.

Now I will put in the links and te videos refuting your defense of those terrible anti-democratic piece of crap justifications for denying the majority their due.







Why is it hard? Because they don't care about it. The reality is that the USA has a very inefficient system and it doesn't work.

The democracy is a sham. The politicians should have changed all that to make it easy for voters to vote. They don't? Mostly because the entire system is geared for wealthy corporations to influence the vote and have less ordinary American voters involved in the process. It means the people running the country are not into democracy. They are into corrupt, inept and unequal representation. One doesn't have to be a genius to figure it out Doug.

Go get some awful disease and stand in line breathing in some far and few between inconvenient poling place. because absentee ballots are about electoral fraud. Lol. Even though you have to present a legal ID and an original birth certificate in most states to get your very first mail in ballot. After that only when you move is the mailing out stopped.

Me? I am in Mexico. I can vote from Mexico. How? VoteFromAbroad.org. You go on the website, register and you vote via email or in person at the American consulate which is close to my house here in Mexico. Just register in time. Easy. They use the same laws that support military personnel voting in other nations. If you never voted before? In a USA state it gets hard. They are safe.

No, too many people impeding voting from average people. Fix it or have to admit the democracy in the USA is a deliberate sham.

Yeah, just say to them. Go get shot to fight the enemies of the USA gov't abroad but when you go back home to Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and American Samoa, etc you can't vote for the president that might send you to die for them. Also, your congressperson can't vote and you have no senators. Just sit there and get less of all federal programs...less than half of everything, and even if you are a veteran? No vote if you live in your home territory without voting rights. We are so fair and believe in democracy.

Yeah, Doug the Americans are so fair. They believe in democracy. NOT!!

Listen here? Are you gonna give me some racist shitty excuse? Probably. That is what all the democracy believer fakers come up with....well, it is just that there is this issue...No, man. Own it. It is about power and not democracy man. It is about being abusive. The USA is abusive and liars. If you admit that? Things improve. If you don't? The sham continues....as the world turns and people open up to the reality that the USA is a sham...you will lose power. I won't be crying.

User avatar
By Hindsite
#15094116
Beren wrote:You're definitetey a pro-Israel devil-worshipping Trumpite faking Christian, @Hindsite, and with your absurd and exaggerated character you could be an agent as well. You wouldn't be the only one here for sure. :evil:

You left out the part that I should be sent directly to the lake of fire. :lol:

Tainari88 wrote:Listen here? Are you gonna give me some racist shitty excuse? Probably. That is what all the democracy believer fakers come up with....well, it is just that there is this issue...No, man. Own it. It is about power and not democracy man.

Come on man. :lol:
By Rugoz
#15094120
Doug64 wrote:I have no problem with protecting the integrity of our elections by restricting mail-in ballots, they are one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. Beyond that, you didn't respond to my point that the Electoral College makes effective voter fraud in presidential elections much more difficult. And yes, in the US the president is elected by the citizens of the several states rather than the United States, and I have no problem at all, at all, giving smaller states a smidgen more influence in close elections, so that the large states aren't the only ones that matter--just as I have no problem with the smallest state having the same representation as the largest state in the Senate. I am grateful that the US is a constitutional federal democratic republic, so the majority doesn't always get what it wants. It has given us enough stability that we are the oldest surviving democratic government in the world.


There's no need to give all votes from a state to the winner of that state. Though to be fair, that's not prescribed by the constitution, it's something states naturally tend to do unless they all agree to do otherwise.

You might have the oldest surviving democratic government in the world, but your constitution is hardly a model for anyone at this point.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15094134
Tainari88 wrote:He said @jimjam that his plan was going to be beautiful. Much better than Obamacare. He will replace it. With 'everybody is covered'. It did not happen? Why not? Because it got hard and complicated and he realized? Big pharma and big health insurance is too powerful for his conman politics. Lol.

He is in way way over his head. He demonstrates his incompetence on a daily basis. Dame Fate must be laughing her ass off. I wish to god he stuck with building monuments to himself and stiffing building contractors.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15094135
Rugoz wrote:You might have the oldest surviving democratic government in the world, but your constitution is hardly a model for anyone at this point.

Well, I like our Constitution. That is what makes me a conservative.
Praise the Lord.
#15094136
Rugoz wrote:You might have the oldest surviving democratic government in the world, but your constitution is hardly a model for anyone at this point.


It's better than the westminster models.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15094141
Doug is a typical modern Republican. He does not believe is democracy. He does believe in voter suppression.

Republicans have the morals of an alley cat. Look at what he posts. All just Fox News talking points. And no evidence.

But gullible fools are the republican party base. I hope he isn't one. I am concerned though.
By Doug64
#15094150
Sivad wrote:It depends on how it's set up. If it was done entirely through the US Post Office where anyone could get a ballot on the spot from their mailman just by showing a valid state ID and all third parties were prohibited by law from delivering ballots, the system would actually be more secure than what we have now.

The dems don't want a secure system like that though, the system they're proposing is just an open invitation to voter fraud and ballot tampering.

There's a bit more to the problem than that--how to you guarantee that the person that fills out and mails in the ballot is the one whose name is on it? You don't. The real control comes at the beginning of the process, requesting the ballots in the first place. If you require that those asking for the ballots prove that they actually are the registered voter they claim to be and have a need to vote by mail, you can both restrict the number of mail-in ballots issued and make it simple to investigate any potential voter fraud if needed by checking their stories. And that's the aspects of mail-in voting that the Democrats want to throw away. I have no idea how they are able to ignore the clear evidence that the voter rolls often have only a passing resemblance to reality.

Tainari88 wrote:What do you want people going in person to vote? To get some CoVid 19 and having to wear a mask?

Wisconsin held an in-person primary when its Supreme Court ruled the governor lacked to power to change it to a purely mail-in election and the legislature refused to do so. From what I've heard, out of some 450,000 people that voted (I think) and who knows how many poll workers, up to 52 people, both poll workers and voters, may have become infected because of the election. No fatalities. No surprise, the people most at risk from the Wuhan virus were probably voting by absentee ballot already.

Not letting the majority get what it wants Doug?

Do you believe the Senate should be abolished? After all, what's "democratic" about California having the same level of representation as Wyoming? Simple--Senators represent the citizens of their states, rather than citizens of the Unites States as the federal Representatives do. And it doesn't matter how great the population disparity is, all states have an equal right to be represented.

And I couldn't find anything else worth responding to in the rest of your rant.

Rugoz wrote:There's no need to give all votes from a state to the winner of that state. Though to be fair, that's not prescribed by the constitution, it's something states naturally tend to do unless they all agree to do otherwise.

Personally, what I would prefer is for the Electors to be divvied up by House district, with the two for each state's Senators going to whichever candidate wins the majority of the state. But Democrats would never go for that, it would make it even harder for them to win the presidency--if you divvy up the Electoral College that way, with a single exception every election back to Bush II's first the Republican electoral count is larger, and in the case of the Romney/Obama match-up flips the winner (276 to 262 for Romney, instead of 332 to 206 for Obama--that would have been an exciting election). The single exception is Trump, who would have won 289 instead of the 304 he actually won. (It would have been 306, but two "faithless electors" voted for someone else.) Of course, if we were to pass a constitutional amendment to do that (the only way to get all the states to go along), at the same time we would also need to pass a constitutional amendment to set rules for drawing federal House districts or we would see an explosion of gerrymandering like this nation has never seen before.

But all that being said, there is nothing undemocratic about a state giving all of its electoral votes to whomever a majority of that state's citizens select--majority rule is what democracy is all about, after all.

You might have the oldest surviving democratic government in the world, but your constitution is hardly a model for anyone at this point.

I would say that given our longevity and level of power we're doing something right. No, our system of government isn't solely responsible, maybe not even primarily responsible, but it certainly plays a role. And the people trying to turn the European Union into a real nation could have taken some lessons from our system of federalism, even as hollowed out as it is in modern times. Though the Democratic governors opposing Trump have certainly helped push us back in that direction and are going to have trouble reversing course the next time we elect a Democrat. There are undoubtedly who-knows-how-many centralizers cursing Trump's name and bewailing the missed opportunity the Wuhan virus pandemic could have provided.
By Pants-of-dog
#15094152
@Doug64

Again:

Is there any evidence that mail in voting has led to voter fraud?

Is there any evidence that it will lead to a Democrat advantage?
User avatar
By Drlee
#15094155
Make no mistake POD. The extremely partisan people like Doug64 believe that a win by Trump is FAR more important than allowing everyone to vote. There is not one bit of evidence that voter fraud is a problem in the US. None. God knows they have looked. And they have made unsubstantiated claims. But their goal is to make it as hard for marginalized people to vote as possible.

T
here's a bit more to the problem than that--how to you guarantee that the person that fills out and mails in the ballot is the one whose name is on it?


This does not even make sense. How do you know that their tax return is actually signed by the person who submitted it yet we don't see you calling for in-person tax filings.


If you require that those asking for the ballots prove that they actually are the registered voter they claim to be and have a need to vote by mail, you can both restrict the number of mail-in ballots issued and make it simple to investigate any potential voter fraud if needed by checking their stories.


And this is both a solution in search of a problem AND it makes no sense. Why should I have to prove a "need" to vote by mail? How about, because I want to? What is special about a drive to the polling place?


I have no idea how they are able to ignore the clear evidence that the voter rolls often have only a passing resemblance to reality.


You know POD. Just because someone is either not smart enough to uncover the facts or just to lazy does not mean that the rest of us have to buy it. You have asked for proof of widespread voter fraud. There is none and it is not because nobody is looking.

The Republican Party is not built on solid conservative principles as it once was. It is a construction built on voter suppression and gerrymandering. Without both they would have little power at all. It is in no way conservative. It does not serve the tenants of Christianity. It does not stand for human rights. It is not Nixon's environmentally friendly party. What it is, is a construction to fool people who are not smart enough to know they are being fooled. It is for the rich and by the rich. It wants to build a wall to stop immigration while staunchly refusing to allow workplace enforcement. It is spending like a drunken sailor and has abandoned a balanced budget to the democrats.

But Doug has been fooled. He wants us to believe that he won't vote for Trump yet he touts the very things that got him elected. Gerrymandering and voter suppression. He is just as dishonest as the rest of them. Or just as deceived and not capable of seeing it.

No more passes for Trumpists. They get called on their bullshit every time. If they can't handle the facts they can cry like the special snowflakes they think they are. Or at least white people are.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15094177
Drlee wrote:There is not one bit of evidence that voter fraud is a problem in the US. None.

Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Indicted for Election Fraud in Favor of Democrats
DeMuro conceded that a political consultant, whose name was not revealed, paid him to illegally doctor votes for multiple Democratic candidates. The bribery money would be disguised as "consulting fees"

It's the Russians! It's the Russians!

Drlee wrote:What it is, is a construction to fool people who are not smart enough to know they are being fooled.

So that must be why you are a Republican.

Drlee wrote:It is spending like a drunken sailor and has abandoned a balanced budget to the democrats.

A Democratic Congress hasn't passed a balanced budget or reached a surplus since 1969. The Democrats aren't campaigning on a balanced budget at all.

Drlee wrote: He wants us to believe that he won't vote for Trump yet he touts the very things that got him elected. Gerrymandering and voter suppression.

How many times do we have to go over this? You cannot gerrymander a presidential election. You cannot gerrymander Senate seats. You can only gerrymander seats in the House of Representatives.

Drlee wrote:He is just as dishonest as the rest of them.

Maybe he knows more about civics than you do.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15094183
Hindsite wrote:You left out the part that I should be sent directly to the lake of fire. :lol:


Come on man. :lol:



I respect people's archetypes and cultural paradigms. You are a Southern Baptist. Follow what they say and stop putting your trashy president as your American Idol and defending his money-grubbing and pussy-grabbing nasty ass ways, and the pendejo that has committed every sin in the book at this point? And dedicate yourself to attending church services to try to amend for your very numerous sins. Mainly being discriminatory, racist and defending liars, cheats, and creeps.

The Lake of Fire is your choice because it is the religion you chose for yourself.

You can try to justify your racism. But your racism has nothing to do with Jesus. It has to do with the man in the mirror. You.

Have a nice day.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15094185
@Doug64 wrote:

Wisconsin held an in-person primary when its Supreme Court ruled the governor lacked to power to change it to a purely mail-in election and the legislature refused to do so. From what I've heard, out of some 450,000 people that voted (I think) and who knows how many poll workers, up to 52 people, both poll workers and voters, may have become infected because of the election. No fatalities. No surprise, the people most at risk from the Wuhan virus were probably voting by absentee ballot already.


Yes, paper ballots are worse than putting on gloves and counting up ballots in a machine Doug versus people standing in line for hours and showing up after burning gas to get to a poll site that is far from their homes in some rural Wisconsin small town? And wearing a mask and some gloves if they have to use the pens in the polling site? Or a machine and press buttons that some unknown person touched with their hands before them. How bad does the unemployed person who doesn't want to pay for more gasoline than they have to love the entire idea of voting at this point? Your arguments are weak and pitiful and you run from valid points. That means you are not only not honest but deceptive for ego reasons mainly.

Next weak cover your ass answer....

Doug64 continues covering his ass with this:


Do you believe the Senate should be abolished? After all, what's "democratic" about California having the same level of representation as Wyoming? Simple--Senators represent the citizens of their states, rather than citizens of the Unites States as the federal Representatives do. And it doesn't matter how great the population disparity is, all states have an equal right to be represented.

And I couldn't find anything else worth responding to in the rest of your rant.


Why don't you deal with the issues I raised in my original post to you? The problems with voting rights and making it easy for the voters to vote? You bypass that and get into shit I never brought up like abolishing the senate. Did I argue for abolishing the senate? No. The issue is how come so many US citizens are denied a vote with legal arguments citing racist legal codes? You don't cope because you will lose the argument. You think I don't know or notice what you are doing now? It is called a 'deflection'. The sign of a man who is confronted with a bunch of evidence that makes their argumentation weak and since again you have a big ego and would rather deceive than admit someone from another political point-of-view from yours has a valid point? You engage in that low behavior. My 'rant'you ignore because it destroyed your cheap tactics.

Victory is mine and you won't answer PoD's arguments well because you don't want to lose with logic. Logic is too much for people who will never admit to racism---you think your posts on that Civil War thread don't reveal where your brain is at Doug64. The South lost. Thanks be to the greater universe those Southern exploiters who thought abolishing slavery was immoral got their ass kicked by Northern low life Carpetbaggers seeking new cheap wage labor to exploit. They got their asses handed to them by other exploitation idiots who thought they owned the world as well.

No, I have no respect for people running from valid argumentation because they have these false sense of pride and use some kind of dismissal of valid points to cover their ass.

You have a nice day Doug....thinking your true thoughts are safe from public fora criticism. It is not.
  • 1
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 214
What is Fascism

You're ignorant. Hitler wasn't a socialist. His p[…]

Yes it's normal to giggle at your own thoughts tha[…]

I give a shit, damn it. Why do you give a shit?[…]

You need to have some experience with serving on […]