What would you do?

[flockofseagulls104]

Even you usual suspects, in the back, dark recesses of your mind where you never go, know that Joe Biden is not your ideal candidate for President. You know, but can never admit, he has cognitive problems that aren't getting any better. His policies mostly backfire, and he has zero charisma. The lawfare strategy does not seem to be working, and it looks like your traditional base groups of support are dwindling away.

But don't get defensive. That is not necessary.

Just out of curiosity, if you were put in charge of the Democrat Party, what would you do to make sure the evil Donald J Trump does not return to the White House (EWWWWWW!)? Would you replace Biden as the candidate? If so, with who? What other changes would you make?

[silverscreenselect]

You know, but can never admit, he has cognitive problems that aren't getting any better. - WRONG

His policies mostly backfire - WRONG

and he has zero charisma. - WRONG

The lawfare strategy does not seem to be working - WRONG

[flockofseagulls104]

You know, but can never admit, he has cognitive problems that aren't getting any better. - WRONG

His policies mostly backfire - WRONG

and he has zero charisma. - WRONG

The lawfare strategy does not seem to be working - WRONG

Not even a glimmer of rational thought can emanate from trollboy. Not surprising. Anyone else?

[tlynn78]

You know, but can never admit, he has cognitive problems that aren't getting any better. - WRONG

His policies mostly backfire - WRONG

and he has zero charisma. - WRONG

The lawfare strategy does not seem to be working - WRONG

Lmao! When his handlers have to issue double-digit "corrections" for his speeches, THAT HE READS FROM A TELEPROMPTER, there might be a problem. I'm wondering how long it'll be before we just get, " here's the text of what Biden
would say" or maybe KJP just reading "his" speeches for him

[wbtravis007]

You know, but can never admit, he has cognitive problems that aren't getting any better. - WRONG

His policies mostly backfire - WRONG

and he has zero charisma. - WRONG

The lawfare strategy does not seem to be working - WRONG

Not even a glimmer of rational thought can emanate from trollboy. Not surprising. Anyone else?

The boys in Predictions are saying that there probably won’t be anyone else responding.

They’re usually right, you know.

[tlynn78]

Not even a glimmer of rational thought can emanate from trollboy. Not surprising. Anyone else?

The boys in Predictions are saying that there probably won’t be anyone else responding.

They’re usually right, you know.

Certainly no one with a fresh idea. (Or cogent thought). But my heart breaks at the thought we won't be blessed with the usual TDS, incoherent spittle, and "talk-to-text typos."

[wbtravis007]

Not even a glimmer of rational thought can emanate from trollboy. Not surprising. Anyone else?

The boys in Predictions are saying that there probably won’t be anyone else responding.

They’re usually right, you know.

Certainly no one with a fresh idea. (Or cogent thought). But my heart breaks at the thought we won't be blessed with the usual TDS, incoherent spittle, and "talk-to-text typos."

[Ritterskoop]

In another thread, I laid out an open conventions script for both parties that would make this whole thing a lot more democratic for everyone. We would still be hamstrung by the structure of the party delegates, but let's fix one thing at a time.

We would get to hear from the top handful of contenders in both parties, rather than rubber-stamping pre-approved old people who have already been in the post.

[Bob78164]

In another thread, I laid out an open conventions script for both parties that would make this whole thing a lot more democratic for everyone. We would still be hamstrung by the structure of the party delegates, but let's fix one thing at a time.

We would get to hear from the top handful of contenders in both parties, rather than rubber-stamping pre-approved old people who have already been in the post.

I'm not sure why you think the process that was actually used wasn't democratic. Certainly on the Republican side, the voters had viable options. I'm pretty confident that the presumptive nominee is the person most Republican voters want as their nominee. That's why I think the Republican Party is beyond salvation at this point.

As for the Democratic side, there were options there as well. Sure, a number of prominent Democrats declined to run, but one of the unspoken qualifications for running for President is that you have to be willing to run for the office. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

That's why I think the Republican Party is beyond salvation at this point.

I think it's you, booby, with your extreme case of TDS, that's beyond salvation. But that's just my opinion. Maybe you can make a lawfare suit against me for saying that.

Perhaps you can name me any issues that are important to Average American Citizens on which we are better off now than we were when Trump was President. And tell me why you think that.

The increasing job market for corrupt, leftist lawyers doesn't count.

[silverscreenselect]

Perhaps you can name me any issues that are important to Average American Citizens on which we are better off now than we were when Trump was President. And tell me why you think that.

1. COVID
2. Unemployment
3. Infrastructure Development
4. Stock market

That's four for starters.

[flockofseagulls104]

Perhaps you can name me any issues that are important to Average American Citizens on which we are better off now than we were when Trump was President. And tell me why you think that.

1. COVID
2. Unemployment
3. Infrastructure Development
4. Stock market

That's four for starters.

Interesting selection.
None of them are in the top ten issues according to NewsWeek, unless you do a little of your usual stretching.

I'm sure Biden had a lot to do with the Covid situation going away. And factoring in that his administration has no interest in finding out how it actually began, and that Dr Fauci had a lot of lying and covering up revealed, I'm surprised you would bring that up.

Unemployment? Really. The government shutdown and killed millions of jobs because of Covid lockdowns, which had little effect in 'stopping the spread' but scarred many, especially school age children, for the rest of their lives. No surprise that jobs came back when the lockdowns were lifted. (They will NEVER be complied with again, BTW)

Funny how that and the Stock Market are the only economic issues you mention, conveniently ignoring the staggering inflation and supply chain failures. But I realize you had to dig deep. Most Average Americans don't really care much about the stock market. But the political class does.

And the most amusing one of all: Infrastructure Development. I remember, not too long ago, Obama solved that issue once and for all with his shovel-ready jobs trillion-dollar fiasco. I realize us simpletons aren't supposed to remember shit like that. What happened with that? You bring Infrastructure up with Mayor Pete in charge of it? How many train crashes, bridge collapses etc... do you get to be on this list? Not to mention 7 or 8 electric vehicle charging stations built since 2021 for billions of dollars?


D- for your list, but nice try considering your severe case of TDS. And maybe I can assume we were better off with all the other issues you didn't name under President Trump. You all seem to forget he was President already, and the country and the world didn't fall apart like they are under Biden.

[Ritterskoop]

In another thread, I laid out an open conventions script for both parties that would make this whole thing a lot more democratic for everyone. We would still be hamstrung by the structure of the party delegates, but let's fix one thing at a time.

We would get to hear from the top handful of contenders in both parties, rather than rubber-stamping pre-approved old people who have already been in the post.

I'm not sure why you think the process that was actually used wasn't democratic. Certainly on the Republican side, the voters had viable options. I'm pretty confident that the presumptive nominee is the person most Republican voters want as their nominee. That's why I think the Republican Party is beyond salvation at this point.

As for the Democratic side, there were options there as well. Sure, a number of prominent Democrats declined to run, but one of the unspoken qualifications for running for President is that you have to be willing to run for the office. --Bob

It's my perception that a lot of qualified people didn't run due to influence by the two major parties, who prefer known quantities.

If we could only add ranked choice voting, that would be a big step toward improving this process, in that people could say they prefer a nonbinary option without it being a vote thrown away.

[flockofseagulls104]

In another thread, I laid out an open conventions script for both parties that would make this whole thing a lot more democratic for everyone. We would still be hamstrung by the structure of the party delegates, but let's fix one thing at a time.

We would get to hear from the top handful of contenders in both parties, rather than rubber-stamping pre-approved old people who have already been in the post.

I'm not sure why you think the process that was actually used wasn't democratic. Certainly on the Republican side, the voters had viable options. I'm pretty confident that the presumptive nominee is the person most Republican voters want as their nominee. That's why I think the Republican Party is beyond salvation at this point.

As for the Democratic side, there were options there as well. Sure, a number of prominent Democrats declined to run, but one of the unspoken qualifications for running for President is that you have to be willing to run for the office. --Bob

It's my perception that a lot of qualified people didn't run due to influence by the two major parties, who prefer known quantities.

If we could only add ranked choice voting, that would be a big step toward improving this process, in that people could say they prefer a nonbinary option without it being a vote thrown away.

Please explore the arguments against RCV, Skoop. It is a further step into opaque, non transparent elections where no one can verify who actually wins, and you have to rely on the proclamations of those who count the votes, not those who voted. Don't be pulled down that road.

[mrkelley23]

I'm not sure why you think the process that was actually used wasn't democratic. Certainly on the Republican side, the voters had viable options. I'm pretty confident that the presumptive nominee is the person most Republican voters want as their nominee. That's why I think the Republican Party is beyond salvation at this point.

As for the Democratic side, there were options there as well. Sure, a number of prominent Democrats declined to run, but one of the unspoken qualifications for running for President is that you have to be willing to run for the office. --Bob

It's my perception that a lot of qualified people didn't run due to influence by the two major parties, who prefer known quantities.

If we could only add ranked choice voting, that would be a big step toward improving this process, in that people could say they prefer a nonbinary option without it being a vote thrown away.

Please explore the arguments against RCV, Skoop. It is a further step into opaque, non transparent elections where no one can verify who actually wins, and you have to rely on the proclamations of those who count the votes, not those who voted. Don't be pulled down that road.

Trying not to be snarky here, I really am. Can you give me an example of a voting process where one relies on the proclamations of those who voted, rather than those who count the votes? As someone who was shouting much the same stuff as you 16 years ago about wanting paper ballots, I'm really curious as to how hand-counted paper ballots, as opposed to RCV, are superior in transparency.

[Beebs52]

So. Edumacate me. I understand the concept of rcv. Not sure it's efficacious. Forget the whole electoral college prob.
What is to prevent each candidate from using the same blowhard, moneydriven tactics to pressure everyone all the time that have been used in the past?
Would this not clutter up lower level contests?
Just asking

[flockofseagulls104]

It's my perception that a lot of qualified people didn't run due to influence by the two major parties, who prefer known quantities.

If we could only add ranked choice voting, that would be a big step toward improving this process, in that people could say they prefer a nonbinary option without it being a vote thrown away.

Please explore the arguments against RCV, Skoop. It is a further step into opaque, non transparent elections where no one can verify who actually wins, and you have to rely on the proclamations of those who count the votes, not those who voted. Don't be pulled down that road.

Trying not to be snarky here, I really am. Can you give me an example of a voting process where one relies on the proclamations of those who voted, rather than those who count the votes? As someone who was shouting much the same stuff as you 16 years ago about wanting paper ballots, I'm really curious as to how hand-counted paper ballots, as opposed to RCV, are superior in transparency.

People can see paper ballots. They physically exist, and therefore a chain of custody can be established that is meaningful. Actual people can view the counting and can verify for themselves the actual counts. In an electronic system, that chain of custody disappears. At least here in Georgia, all official counts come from the machines. No one can see ones and zeros once the votes enter the machine. And any 'recount' is suspect. As trollboy points out, they did multiple recounts here in Georgia. Not one of them came up with the same number as any other. Try getting away with that on your taxes, or in any legitimate business.

"Oh, it's safe and secure, and anyone suggesting it isn't is a shithead" So our mantra has gone for the last 4 years. it took them 3 1/2 years but they finally actually looked at Joe Rossi's evidence here in GA, and he was vindicated by the State Election Board. Sure, we have paper ballots here in GA, but no one, not even the State Election Board, who has authority, will be allowed to see them. Brad Raffensperger is doing everything possible, legal or not, to prevent it. There is no transparency to these elections, only the people who count the votes have access to the actual numbers. And even they don't know, as proven by the SOS Office's testimony at the SEB.

[Bob78164]

So. Edumacate me. I understand the concept of rcv. Not sure it's efficacious. Forget the whole electoral college prob.
What is to prevent each candidate from using the same blowhard, moneydriven tactics to pressure everyone all the time that have been used in the past?
Would this not clutter up lower level contests?
Just asking

Maine is using ranked choice voting for federal offices. Alaska is using it for (I believe) all state elections.

Ranked choice voting tends to drive candidates toward the middle (which is why radical Republicans don't like it) because Democrats can win elections by getting second-place votes from moderate Republican voters and Republicans can win elections by getting second-place votes from moderate Democratic voters. --Bob

[mrkelley23]

Please explore the arguments against RCV, Skoop. It is a further step into opaque, non transparent elections where no one can verify who actually wins, and you have to rely on the proclamations of those who count the votes, not those who voted. Don't be pulled down that road.

Trying not to be snarky here, I really am. Can you give me an example of a voting process where one relies on the proclamations of those who voted, rather than those who count the votes? As someone who was shouting much the same stuff as you 16 years ago about wanting paper ballots, I'm really curious as to how hand-counted paper ballots, as opposed to RCV, are superior in transparency.

People can see paper ballots. They physically exist, and therefore a chain of custody can be established that is meaningful. Actual people can view the counting and can verify for themselves the actual counts. In an electronic system, that chain of custody disappears. At least here in Georgia, all official counts come from the machines. No one can see ones and zeros once the votes enter the machine. And any 'recount' is suspect. As trollboy points out, they did multiple recounts here in Georgia. Not one of them came up with the same number as any other. Try getting away with that on your taxes, or in any legitimate business.

"Oh, it's safe and secure, and anyone suggesting it isn't is a shithead" So our mantra has gone for the last 4 years. it took them 3 1/2 years but they finally actually looked at Joe Rossi's evidence here in GA, and he was vindicated by the State Election Board. Sure, we have paper ballots here in GA, but no one, not even the State Election Board, who has authority, will be allowed to see them. Brad Raffensperger is doing everything possible, legal or not, to prevent it. There is no transparency to these elections, only the people who count the votes have access to the actual numbers. And even they don't know, as proven by the SOS Office's testimony at the SEB.

Thank you for explaining further. I disagree with you on the superiority of paper ballots, but I can see where ranked choice voting adds another layer of opacity which could be exploited by unscrupulous folks. Maine and Alaska have the advantage of not having much population density to worry about. But if there are 10 candidates running in a state with tens of millions of voters, the counting process becomes orders of magnitude more difficult.

[Ritterskoop]

I like ranked choice voting because it brings more than two candidates into the game.

As for the discussion about trusting my neighbors to count votes, I do trust them. I will work with them this fall if I can, now that I no longer teach on Tuesdays.

[flockofseagulls104]

I like ranked choice voting because it brings more than two candidates into the game.

As for the discussion about trusting my neighbors to count votes, I do trust them. I will work with them this fall if I can, now that I no longer teach on Tuesdays.

Your neighbors don't count the votes. At least here in GA, the state does, once it goes through a complicated, hackable, fully hidden electronic system that no person can possibly understand, much less any average citizen. And they are the sole reporter of the results and keep the actual ballots secret so that no person or outside entity can verify what they report.

So I think you are being rather naive.

[silverscreenselect]

So I think you are being rather naive.

Flock, for you to call someone else on this Bored naive is one of the funniest things you've ever said.

[flockofseagulls104]

So I think you are being rather naive.

Flock, for you to call someone else on this Bored naive is one of the funniest things you've ever said.

Everything I say seems to be funny to you, except when I am actually trying to be funny. Then you take it seriously.

[Ritterskoop]

Maybe the political divide in our country is about who trusts the system and who doesn't?

While I try to have a healthy realism that some people will take advantage of a thing, I have always chosen not to live my life always on guard for it. For me, it would be an unhealthy existence. I saw a definition somewhere in the past year or so that anxiety is nearly always about the future, about worrying what might go wrong, and I can't fathom choosing that kind of instability in my stomach.

[flockofseagulls104]

Maybe the political divide in our country is about who trusts the system and who doesn't?

While I try to have a healthy realism that some people will take advantage of a thing, I have always chosen not to live my life always on guard for it. For me, it would be an unhealthy existence. I saw a definition somewhere in the past year or so that anxiety is nearly always about the future, about worrying what might go wrong, and I can't fathom choosing that kind of instability in my stomach.

As I say on this bored often, I know that I don't know what I don't know. I take with a grain of salt anything that is proclaimed as fact on the internet that does not come with verifiable proof.

There's a lot of things I don't know about the claims on both sides of the election integrity issue. One side says one thing, the other side says the complete opposite. Either one side is lying, or the other, but most times both. But there are some things, given my skills, that I can verify for myself. And based on my own knowledge, if I can verify the claims of one side of an issue, that side gains credibility, and the other side loses credibility. Here's one:

I have been able, using verified, publicly available data, to determine one of the indictment charges that Fani Willis has made against Donald Trump, John Eastman and Ray Stallings Smith is demonstrably FALSE. She charges them with making false statements. One of them was claiming that either 1043 or 904 people voted on 11/3/2020 from illegal post office box addresses. (Pages 21,51 and 73 of the indictment)

That I can verify. I did so. I found that there were at least 1077 votes in the Georgia 2020 election from addresses that are either standalone post offices or standalone UPS Store addresses (I have Google map photos of the addresses). Using a Post Office or UPS Store box as your residence address is actually a felony in Georgia. And my verification is not exhaustive, but it is valid. Fani Willis made a false statement that she could have verified (She has more resources available to her than I have). She decided to include it in her indictment without verifying it was false. And, even worse, none of the MSM, who could have easily done what I did, bothered to check what she claimed. And on the subject of the MSM, I have another personal experience with them that verifies to me that they are not interested in the truth, just on their pre-decided narrative.

There are other Willis charges there that I don't have the data which I need to verify. But based on that one case, her charge and her indictment is suspect and loses credibility.

There are several other issues I have looked into, and so far all of them have been verified on the side of those who question the results of the election of 2020. And I continue to look into claims that I have the data to verify. So, unlike our trollboy, who relies on his 'experts' for his opinion, I have researched for myself, and I know what I know.

For you, skoop, I offer this: If you want to get into contact with me, I will show you the proof I have. If you agree to share with the bored your opinion after you've seen my proof. Not that it would convince any of the closed minds here, but it would be nice to have independent validation.

It is not the people you know. It is the people you don't know who run and control the system.