Jump to content
chasfh

The 2020 Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Buddha said:

i dont have any fears about a recount.  they are entitled to a recount if the margin of victory is below a certain number.  in those states they can absolutely demand a recount.  i think they will lose the recount but dont have an issue with them asking for one.

they also have the ability to go to court and seek redress for any election law violations.  thats also within their rights and theyre exercising them.  but it appears that in the process of doing so, they are bringing unsupported claims and/or making claims that are not actual legal violations.  in that respect, they are making frivolous allegations and that, i think, is wrong and harmful.

i also think 100% of this is being done to placate trump himself and that if any other republican candidate had lost, this would not have happened.

i also think it is extremely dangerous to the country and portends bad things coming.  america is headed down a dark road, imo.

I agree with the bolded.  I also agree that if any other republican lost they would have conceded.  I do not agree with your last statement at all.  We are on the same road we have been on for centuries.  As long as we get COVID under control the country will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BetRivers Michigan Sports Betting

BetRivers Michigan $50 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching in January 2021. Pre-register at BetRivers Sportsbook and get a free $50 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan Now

43 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

I just want the safe guards or laws that are in place to make sure to be fleshed out.  Honestly anyone that thinks 100% of every person that voted had their vote counted properly or that NO fraud exists is deluding themselves.  I think it is only normal/rational/obvious that it does happen and when a race is super close it should be double checked.  Again I could not care less in this specific circumstance.  I am talking generally...it should be checked if Trump won by a couple thousand or Biden...it does not matter.  Obviously we only have to worry about the loser contesting it in either case.

It is checked! It's one of the most intensely scrutized, and reviewed human activities on the planet. Sure, everything can be improved, and should be, but our election system is about as good as you could hope for for an activity involving 150 million citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Longgone said:

It is checked! It's one of the most intensely scrutized, and reviewed human activities on the planet. Sure, everything can be improved, and should be, but our election system is about as good as you could hope for for an activity involving 150 million citizens.

The baseless blathering of a fool will not add anything positive to the accuracy, it can only harm the perceived integrity of the process.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddha said:

of course there is voter fraud in america, but its on a small scale and nothing like what trump people are claiming and its not enough to overturn thousands of votes in multiple states.

There is voter fraud in America to the same degree that there are shark attacks in the ocean: it practically never happens, but the very idea of it freaks certain people the **** out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Longgone said:

It is checked! It's one of the most intensely scrutized, and reviewed human activities on the planet. Sure, everything can be improved, and should be, but our election system is about as good as you could hope for for an activity involving 150 million citizens.

I agree for the most part, but there are other safe guards in place like recounts etc for a reason.  Let the process play out.  We can always get better.  Regardless if it is 175 million or not...it is daunting no doubt, but it can be better.  I think we feel about the same about the whole process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

If I had a family member that was a social worker that worked for NYC, I wouldn't like this idea.  That said, you never know.  Quick anecdote about my co-workers wife, a social worker in TN.

A guy walks into her center and says he's having mental issues and needs help.  He's escorted to a room and they call my co-workers wife (social worker) to come in and talk with him.  She was nervous based on how he was acting, wasn't sure if he was high, a danger to himself or others, or both.  Still, walked in and sat down.  Talked to him for over 20 minutes, at times he would calm down, at times he'd start to amp up.   About 20 minutes in, cops walk in the room without knocking, the guy immediately jumps up and backs up to the wall, but didn't resist as they approached him.  They handcuff him and pull out a knife out of his pocket that she said was an 'army' style knife (survival knife).  There was blood on it.  Apparently he just had killed his GF and was out walking around hoping to find a situation where he could die by police suicide when he walked past the county health center and walked in.  

In the end, it ended without further trouble and you can argue it's because a mental health worker was involved.  At the same time, pushing social workers into more possible situations like this and again, I wouldn't want a loved one doing that work.  

Obviously that's tragic, but also extremely rare. You have a greater chance of being assaulted out in public by an intoxicated/mentally ill symptomatic individual than in a secure building with staff. I've been doing this 30 years. I just left an appointment with a fella who did 30 years in prison. If at any time a staff feels unsafe you take precautions. You need mental health providers on calls with obvious mental illness or you will continue to have Rochester. Police are not equipped to handle it. Social workers with no street experience won't be hired for these positions. People react out of what ifs. Aurelio Rodriguez was killed by a motorist while he was walking on a sidewalk. I'll bet more people are assaulted or even killed on sidewalks than in a social worker's office - so should I be worried if my loved ones go for a stroll on a sidewalk? Not trying to be snotty. I'm tired of seeing mentally ill people get killed and escalate to the point they harm others. We need to try something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the foundation of a successful democracy is the loser accepting the results of an election peacefully and the peaceful transition of power.  trump is threatening that with suits based on frivolous allegations, his refusal to concede the election, and refusal to begin the transfer of power peacefully.

the democrats have made noise in the past when they lost (diebold voting machine conspiracies in 2004, the "resistance" of 2016) but they have always conceded and they have never refused to give up power.  despite the shock of 2016, obama was more than gracious in his welcoming of trump and his administration.  there was no attempt to bar the doors and make hillary the winner.  no attempt to change electors.  no attempt to stop the process.

trump has changed all that and called the entire process into question.

if the republicans do gain control of the house in 2022, look out.  because they will be looking for revenge for the impeachment hearings and russia investigation.  get ready for biden to be impeached and for america to further tumble into a banana republic that screams out for a "strongman" to take control...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

If I had a family member that was a social worker that worked for NYC, I wouldn't like this idea.  That said, you never know.  Quick anecdote about my co-workers wife, a social worker in TN.

A guy walks into her center and says he's having mental issues and needs help.  He's escorted to a room and they call my co-workers wife (social worker) to come in and talk with him.  She was nervous based on how he was acting, wasn't sure if he was high, a danger to himself or others, or both.  Still, walked in and sat down.  Talked to him for over 20 minutes, at times he would calm down, at times he'd start to amp up.   About 20 minutes in, cops walk in the room without knocking, the guy immediately jumps up and backs up to the wall, but didn't resist as they approached him.  They handcuff him and pull out a knife out of his pocket that she said was an 'army' style knife (survival knife).  There was blood on it.  Apparently he just had killed his GF and was out walking around hoping to find a situation where he could die by police suicide when he walked past the county health center and walked in.  

In the end, it ended without further trouble and you can argue it's because a mental health worker was involved.  At the same time, pushing social workers into more possible situations like this and again, I wouldn't want a loved one doing that work.  

As my original post said - “some” calls. Not all. And the staff that would be on this team I’m fairly certain would be experienced and know when they’d need additional help. And would dispatch it.  (It’s my belief that assignment to this squad is not going to be offered to a participant that doesn’t want to be there. I’m pretty sure I heard that POV on a radio news report)

Other anecdotal stories would also offer the point of view that it’s unfair to expect a police officer to know how to handle someone who may be suicidal. That lack of training (and a cop shouldn’t have to have a degree in social working / psychology) has led to an escalation where deadly force became necessary.

 I’m just saying I think it makes sense to see if first responders to some calls being a non-police entity can help in some situations.

In addition, this frees up the police to respond to the current escalation of violent crime. 

I find this trial run to be a win-win situation for the community, and law enforcement, and I pray for their success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I would guess that accuracy has already been steadily improving over time as technology has improved.

They don't need some ignorant dbag to tell them how to count votes.   

I think MI pretty universally is using optically read paper ballots. This is about as secure, verifiable and accurate system out there. The only tech the voter has to master is a sharpie, the machine confirms the ballot has been read correctly in real time and the ballot is retained for future verification if there are questions.  It's a system good enough that it is probably the absolute least of our issues around elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buddha said:

the foundation of a successful democracy is the loser accepting the results of an election peacefully and the peaceful transition of power.  trump is threatening that with suits based on frivolous allegations, his refusal to concede the election, and refusal to begin the transfer of power peacefully.

the democrats have made noise in the past when they lost (diebold voting machine conspiracies in 2004, the "resistance" of 2016) but they have always conceded and they have never refused to give up power.  despite the shock of 2016, obama was more than gracious in his welcoming of trump and his administration.  there was no attempt to bar the doors and make hillary the winner.  no attempt to change electors.  no attempt to stop the process.

trump has changed all that and called the entire process into question.

Without a doubt the biggest concern that anyone should have at this point: not that the outcome of this election will change, but that Trump's response to his loss will forever alter how losers in our democracy respond. The idea that every election from this point forward will inevitably be disputed due to the precedent being set right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Also was one of the poll watchers who was trying to encroach  on counters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Without a doubt the biggest concern that anyone should have at this point: not that the outcome of this election will change, but that Trump's response to his loss will forever alter how losers in our democracy respond. The idea that every election from this point forward will inevitably be disputed due to the precedent being set right now.

i dont think the democrats' harping on the russia investigation helped either.  impeachment was a different story, he had done enough things that impeachment was warranted (and should have happened, imo), but the russia stuff went a little overboard.

social media adds to the fire and trump has used it not to attempt to unify - like obama mostly did - but rather to divide and enrage the other side.  thats a dangerous precedent.  especially when you couple it with an economy that is bleeding good paying low education jobs and replacing them with low paying low education jobs.

its a recipe for disaster and violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buddha said:

i dont think the democrats' harping on the russia investigation helped either.  impeachment was a different story, he had done enough things that impeachment was warranted (and should have happened, imo), but the russia stuff went a little overboard.

social media adds to the fire and trump has used it not to attempt to unify - like obama mostly did - but rather to divide and enrage the other side.  thats a dangerous precedent.  especially when you couple it with an economy that is bleeding good paying low education jobs and replacing them with low paying low education jobs.

its a recipe for disaster and violence.

I know it's not a specific policy agenda, but I do think that there's opportunity for the incoming administration if they can counterprogram some of the division and lower the temperature 

Biden, tempermentally, is probably the only guy from the Dem field who could feasibily attempt to do that... skeptical that it will happen, but they need to try

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Buddha said:

i dont think the democrats' harping on the russia investigation helped either.  impeachment was a different story, he had done enough things that impeachment was warranted (and should have happened, imo), but the russia stuff went a little overboard.

social media adds to the fire and trump has used it not to attempt to unify - like obama mostly did - but rather to divide and enrage the other side.  thats a dangerous precedent.  especially when you couple it with an economy that is bleeding good paying low education jobs and replacing them with low paying low education jobs.

its a recipe for disaster and violence.

The Russia stuff was misframed. I don't think they cheated the election, and the Dems should have been sure to frame it that way. I just wanted illegal actions brought to bare.

Once again, the extreme messaging of the far left had downstream effects.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ROMAD1 said:

He will have to give to get.  If he really has an agenda...he might have to give a lot more than he'd like. 

i think he possibly has an opportunity to recruit all the Senators who want a return to regular order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

The Russia stuff was misframed. I don't think they cheated the election, and the Dems should have been sure to frame it that way. I just wanted illegal actions brought to bare.

Once again, the extreme messaging of the far left had downstream effects.

The IC isn’t far left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ROMAD1 said:

The IC isn’t far left

The IC wasn't saying that Hillary won and Trump stole the election. The IC was investigating the Russia meddling. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps in January 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...