How Biden can unite the country

[TangoFoxtrot]

The first one was already happening, with increased Trump voting among major minority groups and an overall increased, record turnout for Trump

IMO without the corruption Trump would have had his landslide

There is no doubt he had a landslide, since the beginning of voting there has always had a 1to 2% swing in turnout and somehow this cycle in swing states had 8% increase in democrat turnout... some of them the numbers equal 1/4 to 1/2 the population... this is statistically impossible as some of the counties had more voters than population.. this is not speculation or anecdotal... this is verified and crunched numbers by bean counters and whistle blowers, some of were even democrats that were abhorred by what was going on in their own country

#resistbidenmarxism

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[mmpsteve]

Can't you just compromise a little?

.

No. We are free or we are not. I do not wish nor am I willing to give up Americans sovereignty.. we fought long and hard to get it.
My suggestion would be if you want to live under a marxist state then move to any one of dozens of countries that are already in your dystopian style of government.
The thing about compromise is you have a center and everytime you compromise with evil you are pulled further and further away from that center each time till one day you look back and do not even recognize what you have lost. Each generation is already being born not knowing the freedoms they have lost from even the previous generation. The time for compromise has ended.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Agreed, and hence the purple in my question, but your response was stated very well.

.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Agreed, and hence the purple in my question, but your response was stated very well.

.

Thank you nice to know im not alone

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[BugI02]

When in a political forum it's best to read posts in that context.

Education of the voter base doesn't just mean position statements, it encompasses making sure every legally cast vote is counted. The voters are the only hope to change how voters are registered, votes are collected, how votes are counted, etc. The political powers won't do it without pressure from the populace.

I don't think this is possible when half of the electorate thinks a vote arriving days after election day, after the legislatively designated cut-off time and without requiring positive identification of the eligibility of the voter is somehow 'legal' at the whims of judges. Nor do I see hope for rational standards in places like California and wish the constutitionality of the popular vote compact would be tested a little sooner - like now

 

[mmpsteve]

I don't think this is possible when half of the electorate thinks a vote arriving days after election day, after the legislatively designated cut-off time and without requiring positive identification of the eligibility of the voter is somehow 'legal' at the whims of judges. Nor do I see hope for rational standards in places like California and wish the constutitionality of the popular vote compact would be tested a little sooner - like now

Far be it for me to correct you, Mr. B., but my understanding is that the US Constitution leaves it up to each state's legislature to determine the manner of assigning electors. If they choose the Popular-Vote-Compact, I would think it was Constitutional. Maybe not wise, but constitutional. Please correct my understanding if you see it different.

.

 

[BugI02]

Far be it for me to correct you, Mr. B., but my understanding is that the US Constitution leaves it up to each state's legislature to determine the manner of assigning electors. If they choose the Popular-Vote-Compact, I would think it was Constitutional. Maybe not wise, but constitutional. Please correct my understanding if you see it different.

.

I don't think it would pass constitutional muster as it ties a states election results to events outside that state. I don't think a state gets to redefine what an election is. The area of disagreement is why I would like to see it tested sooner rather than later. Imagine if that was the issue on which the outcome of this election turned and it was being litigated now

Edit: I'm pretty sure you realize one of the issues in PA is a judge contradicting the express written will of the legislature as to which votes and when would be accepted

 

[mmpsteve]

I don't think it would pass constitutional muster as it ties a states election results to events outside that state. I don't think a state gets to redefine what an election is. The area of disagreement is why I would like to see it tested sooner rather than later. Imagine if that was the issue on which the outcome of this election turned and it was being litigated now

Edit: I'm pretty sure you realize one of the issues in PA is a judge contradicting the express written will of the legislature as to which votes and when would be accepted

Yes on the PA point, and it's one detail that gives me hope that PA can be overturned. As to the other point, if a state's legislature works within the bounds of it's own state law to join the PopVotePact, I would think the only thing to stop it would be the citizens of that state to challenge it, in say, the event that the State's popular vote and the PopVotePact didn't match. They might have a case, but I wouldn't see it as a Federal case.

I know from reading your past writings that you're more learned on these matters than I am, so I'm always willing to be edumacated by the likes of you, even though you root for a JV squad like osu.

ROLL TIDE ...

.

 

[flightsimmer]

There is no way Biden or anyone else can unite this country. At this point I wonder if even God could find a way to unite us knowing full well that nothing is impossible for God.

 

[BugI02]

He could admit the fraud and resign, but that would require an ascendent conscience

 

[flightsimmer]

He could admit the fraud and resign, but that would require an ascendent conscience

That wouldn't stop the people behind him, he is only the front man, at present.

 

[IndyDave1776]

#ResistChurchmouse

I thought about posting #ChurchmouseForPresident but if I tried dumping thatin his lap he would probably ban me for 5 lifetimes then drive to my house and beat knots in my head.

 

[jamil]

If churchmouse can't unite ingo, what makes you think anyone can unite the country?

Well, c'mon. It's not up to CM to unite INGO. People disagree on stuff. And some people are okay with disagreeing agreeably, and some people want to jab people who disagree with them. It's a choice. All CM can do is remove people who can't discuss disagreements without getting ****ty about it.

 

[jamil]

Well united doesn't mean 100% agree with each other. If anything, it means a willingness to tolerate different points of view. Acceptance that a democracy may vote to do things i don't personally believe are right but abiding by the rule of law. Using those rules of law to change what I don't like by persuading others to my point of view.

Wanted to nuance more but puppy is at the door!

We talk about tolerance being a good thing, but I don't think it's actually all that great. "Tolerance" feels more like someone condescending to suffer one's peculiarities, as if they are doing the non-conformants a favor. As if they have a right or the power not to allow the non-conformance. I don't want people's tolerance. And I don't even expect people to like what I think or how I act, or what I look like, or who I vote for. Toleration isn't a basis for unity. One can have contempt for people while still "tolerating" them. A mutual acknowledgement of all individuals' right as people, to think and be different from yo is what I think is needed for unity. It allows disagreements without animosity.

 

[jamil]

#ResistChurchmouse

word

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well united doesn't mean 100% agree with each other. If anything, it means a willingness to tolerate different points of view. Acceptance that a democracy may vote to do things i don't personally believe are right but abiding by the rule of law. Using those rules of law to change what I don't like by persuading others to my point of view.

Wanted to nuance more but puppy is at the door!

In this case I should think that 100% agreement to oppose gun-grabbing politicians should be expected on a gun forum.

 

[foszoe]

We talk about tolerance being a good thing, but I don't think it's actually all that great. "Tolerance" feels more like someone condescending to suffer one's peculiarities, as if they are doing the non-conformants a favor. As if they have a right or the power not to allow the non-conformance. I don't want people's tolerance. And I don't even expect people to like what I think or how I act, or what I look like, or who I vote for. Toleration isn't a basis for unity. One can have contempt for people while still "tolerating" them. A mutual acknowledgement of all individuals' right as people, to think and be different from yo is what I think is needed for unity. It allows disagreements without animosity.

Let me clarify what I mean by tolerance. I don't mean acceptance without attempt to change. What I do mean is an attempt to change through civil means.

When one gets married, most likely if there was a healthy dating period, one will discover things love, things they tolerate, things, they can change.

No relationship with any noun is static but dynamic. Things may move between categories.

No machine or firearm would function without correct tolerances.

Some tolerances are more important than others, some can be very tight and well made like a Beretta 9000S in 9mm. Others can be horrible like a Gluck 1911.

I suppose your last sentence IS tolerance in my opinion but it lacks the temporal component.

 

[flightsimmer]

The very fact that there is tremendous doubt among more than half of the country that it was a fair election is more than enough to fuel division for decades to come unless the perpetrators are found out and punished AND a secure , uniform and foolproof system of voting is implemented. In my mind it is all part of President Trump's promise to drain the swamp.

 

[jamil]

Let me clarify what I mean by tolerance. I don't mean acceptance without attempt to change. What I do mean is an attempt to change through civil means.

When one gets married, most likely if there was a healthy dating period, one will discover things love, things they tolerate, things, they can change.

No relationship with any noun is static but dynamic. Things may move between categories.

No machine or firearm would function without correct tolerances.

Some tolerances are more important than others, some can be very tight and well made like a Beretta 9000S in 9mm. Others can be horrible like a Gluck 1911.

I suppose your last sentence IS tolerance in my opinion but it lacks the temporal component.

Yeah, but we're talking about a word and how it's used by others. The following definition is apt.

Tolerance: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.


This assumes the part I object to. "Allow." Who am I to allow you to be you? I have no righteous claim to interfere. I can only deign such authority when the thing I might wish to tolerate or not is when you're interfering with my rights. Let me explain it in terms of behavior. My neighbor often mows a foot or two into my yard. I have every right not to allow that. It's my property. But I like my neighbor. He can't mow straight lines. He can't help it. There's no harm done. I allow it. I tolerate it. It would be within my rights and authority as the property owner not to tolerate it. My other neighbor has a son that likes to play basket ball constantly. I suppose I could be annoyed with the sound of the bouncing ball. It's not something within my power to tolerate or not. There's nothing I have any right to do about it. I accept that he does it. I recognize it's his right to do. That's not something that the world "tolerance" can apply to.

So it's the same thing with things that people talk about tolerating. Take religious tolerance, for example. WTF do I have any right to do about what someone believes about religious matters? I can be intolerant, and take steps I don't have the right to take, to interfere with that person's exercise of their religion. But that would be pretty ****ty of me to deign to have a say about another person's religious exercise. I could "tolerate" a religious person, and decide that I will not interfere with that person's religious exercise. But then that would make me an arrogant SOB for thinking I'm so high-minded for choosing not to be an ******* because I disagree with that person's religious beliefs. How about just not give a **** about what people choose to believe? Doesn't mean I won't engage them, or challenge their beliefs. Recognizing I have no right to interfere with other people's religious exercise is neither tolerance, nor intolerance. It's understanding my place in the world and what rights I have versus other people's rights.

I don't want to be "tolerated". I want a mutual understanding that we both have equal rights to our place in the world, and neither of us have a right to interfere with that. It is that mutual understanding that forms the necessary basis for the ability to live in a diverse world and not kill each other. You don't have a right to tolerate or not tolerate me. And of course I mean "you" rhetorically.

 

[jamil]

The very fact that there is tremendous doubt among more than half of the country that it was a fair election is more than enough to fuel division for decades to come unless the perpetrators are found out and punished AND a secure , uniform and foolproof system of voting is implemented. In my mind it is all part of President Trump's promise to drain the swamp.

This is true. If the other side were really interested in unity, they would engage in this in a way that helps foster trust. I think that would look like advocating as complete an investigation as required to get to the bottom of these allegations. But of course that would mean that both sides would need to conduct the investigation in a fair and transparent way, and both sides would need to accept the outcome, whatever that is.

 

[BugI02]

We talk about tolerance being a good thing, but I don't think it's actually all that great. "Tolerance" feels more like someone condescending to suffer one's peculiarities, as if they are doing the non-conformants a favor. As if they have a right or the power not to allow the non-conformance. I don't want people's tolerance. And I don't even expect people to like what I think or how I act, or what I look like, or who I vote for. Toleration isn't a basis for unity. One can have contempt for people while still "tolerating" them. A mutual acknowledgement of all individuals' right as people, to think and be different from yo is what I think is needed for unity. It allows disagreements without animosity.

I sort of agree with this but have an issue with the 'mutual acknowledgment of all individuals right as people to think and be different from [me] ...', but my disagreement may lie in the forcing of agreement on such things. I am reminded of the current push to force acceptance of 'women with a penis' and associated claptrap. I think 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' provides top cover to dilute revulsion for all sorts of perversion under the cover of it being just 'differences' and part of the 'normal' human spectrum. Some things, like Lolita island and it's enablers, need to be forever beyond the pale