Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

But, But, But, orange man bad…

I don't think anyone here is making such an empty claim as orange man bad. Save that **** for CNN.

 

[KG1]

Hey people can choose who they want to support. I'm not trying to tell people they shouldn't support him. That's their decision. But I'm going to say what I think about it, just as they do. As far as I know, INGO is not a Trump criticism free zone. It's not a mandatory Trump admiration zone either. My opinion isn't going to be friendly towards Trump on his faults. But I'm happy to admit when I think Trump is right about something, or when I think people are judging him unfairly.

The way I see it is that some people only want to gaze at one side of the coin that hey find appealing while others such as yourself want to examine both sides for flaws and their appeal pointing out both. Coins are appraised according to the percentages of their good qualities and also their faults.

 

[jamil]

I can understand your concerns. I'm ticked off about it too. My focus right now is that things are the way they are and the GOP has to start playing the same game that the Democrats have already taken the lead in before the end of the game otherwise they will be destined for repeated failure if they don't.

Yep. I've been saying that the GOP needs to figure out how to do ballot harvesting.

 

[KG1]

Yep. I've been saying that the GOP needs to figure out how to do ballot harvesting.

As well as getting in on early and mail in voting.

 

[BugI02]

All of them I looked at boiled down to challenging the rules of the election after the fact and asking that the results be thrown out, a do-over, when he didn't go to court and challenge them before the election when the rules were announced.

Perhaps an INGO lawyer will weigh in, but I don't think a plaintiff has standing if not a resident of a state in which the rule changes were made or existing rules were violated, unless and until he can show that such changes resulted in some demonstrable harm - which could only be after the vote was counted and certified. Democrats have recognized and deliberately exploited the fact that there is insufficient time between Election Day and Inauguration Day to take any meaningful legal action

That election laws, such as those purporting to guarantee access to observers from all parties, have no penalties or remedies enshrined in their text allows them to be violated with impunity and leads to endless arguing about what should be done rather than anything actually being done. It is a recipe to get to box four sooner or later, even jamil claims to have limits, although he has detailed nothing about what comes next when, in extremis, even his presumably squishy lines are crossed

He just reads like JamilAnon - stay home, don't worry, things will sort themselves out, it will be alright

 

[jamil]

the challenge for the GOP is that rural areas are where they have large advantages over dems. That's hard to ballot harvest.

Maybe the GOP shouldn't concede the urban areas. Get ground teams in there and get every vote they can. It starts with fielding local candidates that can appeal there.

 

[KG1]

Perhaps an INGO lawyer will weigh in, but I don't think a plaintiff has standing if not a resident of a state in which the rule changes were made or existing rules were violated, unless and until he can show that such changes resulted in some demonstrable harm - which could only be after the vote was counted and certified. Democrats have recognized and deliberately exploited the fact that there is insufficient time between Election Day and Inauguration Day to take any meaningful legal action

That election laws, such as those purporting to guarantee access to observers from all parties, have no penalties or remedies enshrined in their text allows them to be violated with impunity and leads to endless arguing about what should be done rather than anything actually being done. It is a recipe to get to box four sooner or later, even jamil claims to have limits, although he has detailed nothing about what comes next when, in extremis, even his presumably squishy lines are crossed

He just reads like JamilAnon - stay home, don't worry, things will sort themselves out, it will be alright

I think what happened on 1/6 was a culmination resulting from all other avenues of redress through the courts about election concerns being shut down outright.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps an INGO lawyer will weigh in, but I don't think a plaintiff has standing if not a resident of a state in which the rule changes were made or existing rules were violated, unless and until he can show that such changes resulted in some demonstrable harm - which could only be after the vote was counted and certified. Democrats have recognized and deliberately exploited the fact that there is insufficient time between Election Day and Inauguration Day to take any meaningful legal action

That election laws, such as those purporting to guarantee access to observers from all parties, have no penalties or remedies enshrined in their text allows them to be violated with impunity and leads to endless arguing about what should be done rather than anything actually being done. It is a recipe to get to box four sooner or later, even jamil claims to have limits, although he has detailed nothing about what comes next when, in extremis, even his presumably squishy lines are crossed

He just reads like JamilAnon - stay home, don't worry, things will sort themselves out, it will be alright

Maybe you're thinking of what I've said before, that if you bring your musket to the village square and no one else has theirs, it's not time. Go home before you embarrass yourself.

 

[drillsgt]

Mike, I am concerned for our country and believe in our constitution.

You and I just disagree on what that means based on who and what to believe as credible.

What I believe is credible with respect to Trump's claims is what was filed in various courts. What he posted on Twitter and says at his rallies is not. I've not looked at all of them by any means, but I saw the same thing repeated enough that I stopped. If there are different claims in certain states/jurisdicitons, let me know and I will definitely look at them.

All of them I looked at boiled down to challenging the rules of the election after the fact and asking that the results be thrown out, a do-over, when he didn't go to court and challenge them before the election when the rules were announced.

And, at least some of them were rules in place during the 2016 election, which he won in the particular state.

The only one I know of before the election was the PA Supreme Court extending absentee ballots to all postmarked by election day.

Again, if I'm missing something, please let me know.

I’m sure several RINO’s will come along and throw their hat into the primary for you to support.

 

[BugI02]

Yep. I've been saying that the GOP needs to figure out how to do ballot harvesting.

As well as getting in on early and mail in voting.

IMO neither will do much good without some kind of change in counting procedures. No amount of conservative voting will do more than let them know how many votes they need to falsify unless there are deadlines for vote submission, rules for counting early votes but holding the information securely until Election Day and the counting of in person votes. Plus all the concerns about insufficient vetting of individual ballots to ensure the claimed identity of the voter is valid, well established and not in duplicate

I'd really rather do away with free-for-all voting rather than begin the process of trying to win a manipulated contest as the only players following the rules, and that takes a co-ordinated campaign to place conservative players in such hitherto somewhat ignored roles as state level Secretaries of State and AGs in battleground states. The fact that they ARE battleground states should mean there is room to move on that agenda, I don't think anyone is under the delusion anything can be done about California until things get a lot worse

I did, however, approve of an unarmed demonstration by a relatively small number of people causing our representatives to cower in fear as a reminder of how things might go for them if the gloves come off. It is unfortunate that they proceeded to draw the wrong lessons from it. The 1/6 commission won't prevent such things from happening again, it just highlighted the need for better planning and greater use of force

 

[KG1]

the challenge for the GOP is that rural areas are where they have large advantages over dems. That's hard to ballot harvest.

Maybe the GOP shouldn't concede the urban areas. Get ground teams in there and get every vote they can. It starts with fielding local candidates that can appeal there.

The Democrats have shown that if they can't get people to show up at the polls they will go out and get their votes.

 

[jamil]

I think what happened on 1/6 was a culmination resulting from all other avenues of redress through the courts about election concerns being shut down outright.

I remember a conversation at work days after it happened. I tried to get the guy to understand that 1/3 of America thinks the democrats cheated. Whether that's materially correct or not isn't the point. Maybe you wouldn't go there to protest, but surely if you thought Republicans cheated, wouldn't you at least understand things got a little violent? He agreed to that.

 

[KG1]

IMO neither will do much good without some kind of change in counting procedures. No amount of conservative voting will do more than let them know how many votes they need to falsify unless there are deadlines for vote submission, rules for counting early votes but holding the information securely until Election Day and the counting of in person votes. Plus all the concerns about insufficient vetting of individual ballots to ensure the claimed identity of the voter is valid, well established and not in duplicate

I'd really rather do away with free-for-all voting rather than begin the process of trying to win a manipulated contest as the only players following the rules, and that takes a co-ordinated campaign to place conservative players in such hitherto somewhat ignored roles as state level Secretaries of State and AGs in battleground states. The fact that they ARE battleground states should mean there is room to move on that agenda, I don't think anyone is under the delusion anything can be done about California until things get a lot worse

I did, however, approve of an unarmed demonstration by a relatively small number of people causing our representatives to cower in fear as a reminder of how things might go for them if the gloves come off. It is unfortunate that they proceeded to draw the wrong lessons from it. The 1/6 commission won't prevent such things from happening again, it just highlighted the need for better planning and greater use of force

I agree that vote counting procedures play a part in it as well. The only way to change that is to get control of State Goverorships and legislatures and make changes to voting procedures like Fla. has done. If that means going out and collecting the votes like the Democrats are doing to make it happen, then that's where it needs to start.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I’m sure several RINO’s will come along and throw their hat into the primary...

I'm sure you're right.

for you to support.

I'm sure you're wrong.

 

[BugI02]

The way I see it is that some people only want to gaze at one side of the coin that hey find appealing while others such as yourself want to examine both sides for flaws and their appeal pointing out both. Coins are appraised according to the percentages of their good qualities and also their faults.

The way I see it, some people will continue to gaze at that coin, ruminating on the known unknowns, as a practical alternative to ever having to make a decision one way or the other. It doesn't even have to be a coin, it could just as well be your navel

Concluding that one finally knows what the truth is years after any effective actions are possible would seem to be exactly what progressives might like

The tell, which a person can only know about themselves, is whether one is looking for a reason to take action (and what might be effective action) or a reason not to

 

[jamil]

IMO neither will do much good without some kind of change in counting procedures. No amount of conservative voting will do more than let them know how many votes they need to falsify unless there are deadlines for vote submission, rules for counting early votes but holding the information securely until Election Day and the counting of in person votes. Plus all the concerns about insufficient vetting of individual ballots to ensure the claimed identity of the voter is valid, well established and not in duplicate

I'd really rather do away with free-for-all voting rather than begin the process of trying to win a manipulated contest as the only players following the rules, and that takes a co-ordinated campaign to place conservative players in such hitherto somewhat ignored roles as state level Secretaries of State and AGs in battleground states. The fact that they ARE battleground states should mean there is room to move on that agenda, I don't think anyone is under the delusion anything can be done about California until things get a lot worse

I did, however, approve of an unarmed demonstration by a relatively small number of people causing our representatives to cower in fear as a reminder of how things might go for them if the gloves come off. It is unfortunate that they proceeded to draw the wrong lessons from it. The 1/6 commission won't prevent such things from happening again, it just highlighted the need for better planning and greater use of force

This is a point similar to what I made with a progressive family member. We talked about the vote curing laws in Colorado, her home state. You can't allow deadlines to go past election day. Colorado has had mail-in ballots for many years. They're not going away. They've had early voting. So my point was they have all that time to get their votes in and check the status online. It should be up to voters to cure their own ballots. So I think the deadline should be poll closing on election night. If you vote by mail it's YOUR responsibility to ensure that your ballot was accepted. I think the deadline for mail ballots should give time for the curing process. On election night yer done. It's what it is.

She didn't understand why there needs to be a deadline. C'mon. Every moment past the deadline puts votes in a state where more people are involved in the process. After a deadline everything stops. There's only counting at that point. No more ballots accepted. So the rest of the voting apparatus is out of the picture.

But, I don't think it's possible at this point to end mail-in voting. First, it's a state issue how they vote. It doesn't look to me like the constitution would grant the fed much more power over that. But, I do think the fed has the power to draw a line on election day as the deadline for all votes.

 

[jamil]

The way I see it, some people will continue to gaze at that coin, ruminating on the known unknowns, as a practical alternative to ever having to make a decision one way or the other. It doesn't even have to be a coin, it could just as well be your navel

Concluding that one finally knows what the truth is years after any effective actions are possible would seem to be exactly what progressives might like

The tell, which a person can only know about themselves, is whether one is looking for a reason to take action (and what might be effective action) or a reason not to

There's clearly such a thing as true enough. The enough part is determined by the importance of the thing as well as other factors. Not having enough of the truth makes you say stupid **** like we need to install Trump because he says he was cheated. Sorry. That's an area where that's not true enough. We don't install presidents because one side makes a claim about another. People who win through the electoral college are installed as president. Or when a president must leave office, another is installed in the line of succession.

 

[BugI02]

But, I don't think it's possible at this point to end mail-in voting. First, it's a state issue how they vote. It doesn't look to me like the constitution would grant the fed much more power over that. But, I do think the fed has the power to draw a line on election day as the deadline for all votes.

You don't need to end mail in voting entirely, just in enough states to make up a comfortable majority of electoral votes in the electoral college

 

[jamil]

The Democrats have shown that if they can't get people to show up at the polls they will go out and get their votes.

By hook or by crook. Dead or alive.

 

[jamil]

You don't need to end mail in voting entirely, just in enough states to make up a comfortable majority of electoral votes in the electoral college

It's kinda that way now? but here we are.