WWGWD-- that is right what would George Washington do?

[Tax Counsel]

I would support the middle states which New York and California consider fly over anyways being allowed to form their own government with a headquarters in Texas. This would allow the east and west to practice their ideology without having to force the whole of the country to abide by their values and beliefs.

We have a federal form of government that allows CA to do all the wacky stuff it wants and Texas to do all the wacky stuff it wants without having to drag the rest of the states along. That allows people to find the kind of place that best suits them. We don't need to split the country to achieve that.

How long could the blue states make it then when all the free stuff drys up?

A lot longer than you apparently think. You see, a number of the wealthier states are actually blue states, like NY, CA. Those states also contribute more in federal tax dollars than they get back. Conversely, more of the poorer states are red states, like Mississippi and and Alabama, and they get more in federal dollars than they send to Washington. There is of course a mixed bag between these extremes of who gets what, but the idea that the red states are massively carrying the blue ones is just not supported by the facts.

After the split you propose, I think both would be worse off. But I think the red states would probably fare worse after than the blue states would.

 

[Redemptionman]

But that's not what you said, You said no one should be allowed to vote who doesn't have a state issued id. She was (she's passed away now but that's not the point) a registered voter but for various reasons no longer had a state ID. By your earlier definition she was therefore barred from voting.

What is you major malfunction? Next time I go vote I will only bring my Voter Registration card and see if they allow me to vote. I would imagine that the local election people in my precinct will require me to show an ID. This is the law in my area and the place in which I vote. Now would it be the same for you or your experience with this elderly lady in Massachusetts? I have no idea but it is up to the local election precincts to enforce the local election integrity. Not my decision and not yours but I know when I vote. My vote is valid and it is only me voting once and not multiple times or 20 relatives voting under one name or a thousand dead voters turning up at the polls.

 

[Redemptionman]

We have a federal form of government that allows CA to do all the wacky stuff it wants and Texas to do all the wacky stuff it wants without having to drag the rest of the states along. That allows people to find the kind of place that best suits them. We don't need to split the country to achieve that.



A lot longer than you apparently think. You see, a number of the wealthier states are actually blue states, like NY, CA. Those states also contribute more in federal tax dollars than they get back. Conversely, more of the poorer states are red states, like Mississippi and and Alabama, and they get more in federal dollars than they send to Washington. There is of course a mixed bag between these extremes of who gets what, but the idea that the red states are massively carrying the blue ones is just not supported by the facts.

After the split you propose, I think both would be worse off. But I think the red states would probably fare worse after than the blue states would.

Yeah sure, just like California is losing population. Get outside the diseased riddled inner cities and California is pretty rural with lots of conservatives. Then you would have no problem letting the inner city catastrophes falling apart.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Yeah sure, just like California is losing population.

It is losing population currently because of the high cost of living there. Those with lower incomes cannot afford it or would rather go someplace where they can get a bigger bang for their buck. Our wonderful federal system allows people that choice.

But that does not change the fact that CA pays more to the feds in tax dollars than it gets back. So your idea that CA is getting lots of "free stuff" from red states doesn't hold water.

 

[cbg]

What is you major malfunction? Next time I go vote I will only bring my Voter Registration card and see if they allow me to vote. I would imagine that the local election people in my precinct will require me to show an ID. This is the law in my area and the place in which I vote. Now would it be the same for you or your experience with this elderly lady in Massachusetts? I have no idea but it is up to the local election precincts to enforce the local election integrity. Not my decision and not yours but I know when I vote. My vote is valid and it is only me voting once and not multiple times or 20 relatives voting under one name or a thousand dead voters turning up at the polls.

Not required to show an ID in my precinct. And the way they manage it, only one person would be able to vote under each name; a second person trying would immediately be caught. As for dead people voting, well, since dead people aren't allowed to vote in my state, I guess you're the one who's seen The Walking Dead one too many times.

 

[Redemptionman]

It is losing population currently because of the high cost of living there. Those with lower incomes cannot afford it or would rather go someplace where they can get a bigger bang for their buck. Our wonderful federal system allows people that choice.

But that does not change the fact that CA pays more to the feds in tax dollars than it gets back. So your idea that CA is getting lots of "free stuff" from red states doesn't hold water.

Not required to show an ID in my precinct. And the way they manage it, only one person would be able to vote under each name; a second person trying would immediately be caught. As for dead people voting, well, since dead people aren't allowed to vote in my state, I guess you're the one who's seen The Walking Dead one too many times.

Okay, then see that is a system that works for your area. Does voter fraud happen? YES did it affect the outcome of the election? Probably not overall since Trump would still have had to win a northern state or two. I just find it funny that Ohio has predicted the past president since 1901 and in this case Ohio went Trump but ultimately it was Biden who won.

As the bible says, may his time in power be short.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Does voter fraud happen? YES

Yes, it does, though the incidence of fraud today is very low. The fact that Trump was unable to provide any evidence of wide spread fraud is a demonstration of that. Voter fraud actually much more of a problem in the 19th and early 20th century than it is today.

did it affect the outcome of the election? Probably not overall since Trump would still have had to win a northern state or two.

And that's the point, Trump's claim that the election was stolen from him due to fraud just isn't true. Trump just can't stand losing and will say anything he thinks others will buy if it gives him a chance to win.

I just find it funny that Ohio has predicted the past president since 1901 and in this case Ohio went Trump but ultimately it was Biden who won.

That's not odd at all. Indeed, what is odd is that Ohio happened to be a bell weather state for as long as it was. Ohio, and the nation, are much different today than in 1901. Consider, for example, that in 1901 Ohio was the fourth most populous state in the country behind New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. California was only 21st in population. Today, the four most populous states are California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Ohio has slipped to 7th. And some states we have today were not even states in 1901.

 

[Redemptionman]

Yes, it does, though the incidence of fraud today is very low. The fact that Trump was unable to provide any evidence of wide spread fraud is a demonstration of that. Voter fraud actually much more of a problem in the 19th and early 20th century than it is today.

The FRAUD is/ was real, the evidence is THERE but the federal judges and others choose to ignore it for fear of an all out civil war. The proof is there and DOMINION is a scam FRAUD.

That's not odd at all. Indeed, what is odd is that Ohio happened to be a bell weather state for as long as it was. Ohio, and the nation, are much different today than in 1901. Consider, for example, that in 1901 Ohio was the fourth most populous state in the country behind New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. California was only 21st in population. Today, the four most populous states are California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Ohio has slipped to 7th. And some states we have today were not even states in 1901.

LOL, Jingle Bells Jingle Bells -- Tax Counsels argument doesn't pass the smell and taste test,

 

[Tax Counsel]

The FRAUD is/ was real, the evidence is THERE but the federal judges and others choose to ignore it for fear of an all out civil war. The proof is there and DOMINION is a scam FRAUD.

That tells me you haven't read the court documents involved. The courts rejected the claims not out of fear for a civil war but rather because the court complaints filed by Trump's legal team were so deficient that they failed to pass the most minimum requirements to get the case into court.

As for Dominion, it has sued several members of Trump's legal team for defamation regarding their claims regarding Dominion's voting systems in their comments in press conferences and news shows. It is telling that those defendants are not asserting the most basic defamation defense: that what they claimed was true. Indeed, Sidney Powell's defense now is that she was so bonkers that no one could have reasonably thought she was serious. If she had real proof, as you claim that Dominion was a scam & a fraud, she'd have defended based on the truth. So the fact that she has to resort to that claim that she no one could have reasonably believed her tells you that there is actually no proof backing up those claims.

LOL, Jingle Bells Jingle Bells -- Tax Counsels argument doesn't pass the smell and taste test,

Pretty much what I'd expect from someone who can't refute the facts I supplied.

 

[Redemptionman]

That tells me you haven't read the court documents involved. The courts rejected the claims not out of fear for a civil war but rather because the court complaints filed by Trump's legal team were so deficient that they failed to pass the most minimum requirements to get the case into court.

As for Dominion, it has sued several members of Trump's legal team for defamation regarding their claims regarding Dominion's voting systems in their comments in press conferences and news shows. It is telling that those defendants are not asserting the most basic defamation defense: that what they claimed was true. Indeed, Sidney Powell's defense now is that she was so bonkers that no one could have reasonably thought she was serious. If she had real proof, as you claim that Dominion was a scam & a fraud, she'd have defended based on the truth. So the fact that she has to resort to that claim that she no one could have reasonably believed her tells you that there is actually no proof backing up those claims.



Pretty much what I'd expect from someone who can't refute the facts I supplied.

Good then you should have no problem, with a run off election, manual recounts and valid voter ID laws then? The only way to PROVE what you are claiming or saying is to re run it and prove it through valid voter ids. Better yet lets pass laws which should have been in place to begin with to protect voter integrity. If you feel so certain about your allegations then it should be repeatable and come out the same way then.

If these facts and indeed facts then they should be repeatable.

 

[zddoodah]

It would be awfully nice if threads could be marked with "IGNORE" so they don't even show up in the unread posts lists.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Good then you should have no problem, with a run off election, manual recounts and valid voter ID laws then?

Rerun the election we already had? No, I don't think so. Quite apart from the fact that there is nothing in federal law that allows for that, the cost and effort to do it are not justified. Not when there is absolutely no credible evidence of systemic fraud. If you have actual credible evidence of systemic fraud, go ahead and present it. So far you've provided none. Hell, if you have it, give that evidence to Trump and his legal team because clearly they don't have it. You could be the great hero for all the Trumpers and restore Trump to office! Go and do what Trump himself couldn't do. But until there is that credible evidence (and Trump hollering it was fraud is not credible evidence), there is no good reason to redo anything.

Or you could do what you are reluctant to do: admit that your guy lied to you and all his other supporters about the fraud when it turns out he couldn't back it up. You should be angry at Trump that he lied to you. But instead, you don't want to admit that Trump duped you and want to double down on your support for the guy. Trump has had a long history of exaggerating things and lying. It is not an embarrassment for you to admit that he lied to you and to be angry about it.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

No, not in Massachusetts she can't get one for the asking. At the age of 64 I could get one online. But once you pass the age of 75 you have to physically go to an RMV office and stand in line to prove your identity before you can get a state issued ID. Sure, she could prove her identity. She has or could easily get the documents she'd need for that. But why should she? She proved her identity when she registered to vote. Why does she have to prove it again when it comes time to do so? If she was a US citizen when she registered, why would she not be one when she came to vote?

And do not tell me about stolen identities and someone else voting under her identity. There's a hole in that claim so big that, as you said about the movie we were discussing down the street, you could fly the Enterprise D through it. And anyone who can't figure out what I mean by that should be removed from the voting rolls until they've taken a class in American Federal history, one in Civics, and one in logical thinking, and have to pass a test in all three before they can re-register.

If Mass doesn't allow one to get an ID card fairly easily when they turn in their DL that is on the legislature of Mass. Somebody registered to vote and likely proved their right to vote when she registered. But how is some volunteer poll worker to know that that person is the same as the person in front of them?

I think one of the reasons it has been hard to prove the insecurity of voting is because there is no way to prove it after the fact without the registered voter telling someone they didn't vote. I know I have never heard of the state contacting anyone since last November and simply asking, "Hi PayrollHRGuy, did you actually vote this year?

 

[Redemptionman]

Rerun the election we already had? No, I don't think so. Quite apart from the fact that there is nothing in federal law that allows for that, the cost and effort to do it are not justified. Not when there is absolutely no credible evidence of systemic fraud. If you have actual credible evidence of systemic fraud, go ahead and present it. So far you've provided none. Hell, if you have it, give that evidence to Trump and his legal team because clearly they don't have it. You could be the great hero for all the Trumpers and restore Trump to office! Go and do what Trump himself couldn't do. But until there is that credible evidence (and Trump hollering it was fraud is not credible evidence), there is no good reason to redo anything.

Or you could do what you are reluctant to do: admit that your guy lied to you and all his other supporters about the fraud when it turns out he couldn't back it up. You should be angry at Trump that he lied to you. But instead, you don't want to admit that Trump duped you and want to double down on your support for the guy. Trump has had a long history of exaggerating things and lying. It is not an embarrassment for you to admit that he lied to you and to be angry about it.

They all lie including your great GOD like Hussein O'Bama who is definitely still pulling the strings on these idiots that half the country put into office. They have run off in Senate elections, just do not understand why they don't allow them in close elections in States where the President election hits the same 1-3 percent threshold. I could care less, O'Biden will either deteriorate away or be elected out by 2024 anyway. Anyway, hopefully by then Republican party comes up with a better candidate anyway. COVID is just a tool that the elite o crats used to get rid of Trump, without that on going drama Trump would have won in a landslide. Biden even said himself that they have assembled the largest electoral fraud organization ever assembled. You see with dementia patients it is important that you give them the right note cards and meds that way they can stick to the script instead of blubbering out truths on accident.

Trump ran on an outsider not corruptible ticket to help eliminate the swamp bureaucrats that have led to the down grading of the country and instead with the help of the other party he contributed to it.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Anyway, hopefully by then Republican party comes up with a better candidate anyway.

I certainly hope that the Republican party can actually field a good candidate in 2024, one that adopts a conservative platform based on actual facts and science and who is consistent in his/her positions. I'd be happy to vote for that candidate. But so far too many politicians in the party are still spouting crazy stuff that will not win national elections.

 

[cbg]

In order to vote under someone else's name here, you'd have to one, know the name of the person you intended to impersonate. Two, you'd need to know that person's address. Three, you'd need to know their registered political affiliation. Four, you'd need to know without question that the individual in question was unknown to the poll worker. And five, you'd need to know that they had not already voted. Get any one of those wrong and you'd be caught immediately. And it the impersonated individual came in later and was told they'd already voted, well, then they'd know of a case of voter fraud right off, wouldn't they?

 

[Redemptionman]

In order to vote under someone else's name here, you'd have to one, know the name of the person you intended to impersonate. Two, you'd need to know that person's address. Three, you'd need to know their registered political affiliation. Four, you'd need to know without question that the individual in question was unknown to the poll worker. And five, you'd need to know that they had not already voted. Get any one of those wrong and you'd be caught immediately. And it the impersonated individual came in later and was told they'd already voted, well, then they'd know of a case of voter fraud right off, wouldn't they?

Yes, but MA was not one of the states that was in question, iirc. Mail in ballots and other states such as Arizona, Michigan, PA, and Georgia is where the improprieties happened.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

In order to vote under someone else's name here, you'd have to one, know the name of the person you intended to impersonate. Two, you'd need to know that person's address. Three, you'd need to know their registered political affiliation. Four, you'd need to know without question that the individual in question was unknown to the poll worker. And five, you'd need to know that they had not already voted. Get any one of those wrong and you'd be caught immediately. And it the impersonated individual came in later and was told they'd already voted, well, then they'd know of a case of voter fraud right off, wouldn't they?

You don't need that information in every or even most states. Political affiliation isn't even on your registration in my state.

And even in my small town, I didn't happen to know any of the poll workers this year. I would say they didn't know the vast majority of the people that voted there.

As for everything else, it is all available information.

 

[cbg]

I said that's information you would need in order to successfully vote under someone else's identity, in my district. And yes, to successfully vote under someone else's identity in my district, you would need all of that information. If you didn't have it, you'd be caught at the time; if you somehow slipped through four poll workers (2 at a table, one table before you vote and one table after you vote) you'd still be caught when the person in question showed up.

You've backed down a whole lot since this conversation started, RMan. First the entire election was a fraud. Then, Biden won but there was enormous voter fraud. Now there was some voter fraud in just a few states. Could it just maybe be that voter fraud is not as big an issue as your orange hero wants us to believe?

 

[Redemptionman]

I said that's information you would need in order to successfully vote under someone else's identity, in my district. And yes, to successfully vote under someone else's identity in my district, you would need all of that information. If you didn't have it, you'd be caught at the time; if you somehow slipped through four poll workers (2 at a table, one table before you vote and one table after you vote) you'd still be caught when the person in question showed up.

You've backed down a whole lot since this conversation started, RMan. First the entire election was a fraud. Then, Biden won but there was enormous voter fraud. Now there was some voter fraud in just a few states. Could it just maybe be that voter fraud is not as big an issue as your orange hero wants us to believe?

Cause Orange Man Bad,

Love Judge Joe Browns Take

he tells you the truth about Biden Harris
Them Yellow Dog Dixiecrat Racists