" Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory."

[doodle]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

After this last election I think it might be better if people cared a little less.

[pmward]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

After this last election I think it might be better if people cared a little less.

+1

[ahhrunforthehills]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsy ... d-deadline

[doodle]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsy ... d-deadline

Not really going to make much differnce....I think only 10k ballots in that category. I'm kind of missing the point about why this continues...

[I Shrugged]

4 years of the election was stolen (by Russia) and we must believe.... now the election cant be stolen there is no way, and we must believe....

i don't have a clue how it will all pan out, but the more i see, the more Banana republic i see...

+1

A high level of social trust seems to be the most crucial ingredient that allows advanced nations to function smoothly and prosper. And a conspicuous lack of social trust seems to be a hallmark of banana republics.

Outright voter fraud is the least of the problems. It might turn out to be widespread but in the end I expect it would be hard to come up with significant handfuls of votes that are enough to change a state outcome.

The bigger issue, to me, is the extent to which voters themselves are being manipulated. The fake Russian dossier and subsequent use of it to investigate then impeach Trump, the relentless pro-Democrat mainstream media bias pretending to be "non-fake" news, and now selective, politically biased censoring by social media giants. The US has long had a history of this kind of public manipulation (look up the source of the term "yellow journalism" for example, or the history of how the Marijuana Tax Act came to be), but currently it's all going one way and that is distinctly unhealthy. The involvement of Democratic leaders is especially concerning. It makes Watergate look innocent in comparison, and that was considered to be a major scandal and even potentially a constitutional crisis at the time. Why isn't this one??

If major newspapers were about evenly split between Republican and Democrat biases, I wouldn't be so jacked about this. But it's literally only Fox and the NY Post on the Republican side, and every other media outlet on the Democrat side.

Exactly. Even several people on this board have had no exposure to the facts about RuusiaGate and all that. I have friends who have the same blind spots because of the media they take in. Now imagine what the common, non critical thinkers digest.

[doodle]

4 years of the election was stolen (by Russia) and we must believe.... now the election cant be stolen there is no way, and we must believe....

i don't have a clue how it will all pan out, but the more i see, the more Banana republic i see...

+1

A high level of social trust seems to be the most crucial ingredient that allows advanced nations to function smoothly and prosper. And a conspicuous lack of social trust seems to be a hallmark of banana republics.

Outright voter fraud is the least of the problems. It might turn out to be widespread but in the end I expect it would be hard to come up with significant handfuls of votes that are enough to change a state outcome.

The bigger issue, to me, is the extent to which voters themselves are being manipulated. The fake Russian dossier and subsequent use of it to investigate then impeach Trump, the relentless pro-Democrat mainstream media bias pretending to be "non-fake" news, and now selective, politically biased censoring by social media giants. The US has long had a history of this kind of public manipulation (look up the source of the term "yellow journalism" for example, or the history of how the Marijuana Tax Act came to be), but currently it's all going one way and that is distinctly unhealthy. The involvement of Democratic leaders is especially concerning. It makes Watergate look innocent in comparison, and that was considered to be a major scandal and even potentially a constitutional crisis at the time. Why isn't this one??

If major newspapers were about evenly split between Republican and Democrat biases, I wouldn't be so jacked about this. But it's literally only Fox and the NY Post on the Republican side, and every other media outlet on the Democrat side.

Exactly. Even several people on this board have had no exposure to the facts about RuusiaGate and all that. I have friends who have the same blind spots because of the media they take in. Now imagine what the common, non critical thinkers digest.

Is there an issue with Mueller's findings? That guy seems like the most uptight keep it on the straight and narrow type of guy...he never breaks character.

[sophie]

Is there an issue with Mueller's findings? That guy seems like the most uptight keep it on the straight and narrow type of guy...he never breaks character.

I'm astounded that you could even ask that question.

For starters: Mueller's entire case was founded on the Steele dossier, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.

There's more of course. That'll be in Lesson Two, once you've managed to wrap your head around Lesson One.

[yankees60]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

In a Slack discussion at work someone mentioned something like a 5 star score, rank each candidate by 1-5 stars. Mainly he said this as a way to help get more third party participation, if you have say 5 presidential candidates it would be difficult to pick only 1. The human mind doesn't handle non-binary choices very well. So by doing a rank all 5 you wind up with a system that psychologically is a bit easier on the human mind, and also allows you to vote in a way for each candidate you support based on how much you support them..

On our ballot last week was ranked choice voting. I predicted it would pass. Quite surprised that it did not. Maine has had it for a while now.

Vinny

[doodle]

Is there an issue with Mueller's findings? That guy seems like the most uptight keep it on the straight and narrow type of guy...he never breaks character.

I'm astounded that you could even ask that question.

For starters: Mueller's entire case was founded on the Steele dossier, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.

There's more of course. That'll be in Lesson Two, once you've managed to wrap your head around Lesson One.

Mueller's report debunked the Steele dossier. Where do you get your information from?

[pmward]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

In a Slack discussion at work someone mentioned something like a 5 star score, rank each candidate by 1-5 stars. Mainly he said this as a way to help get more third party participation, if you have say 5 presidential candidates it would be difficult to pick only 1. The human mind doesn't handle non-binary choices very well. So by doing a rank all 5 you wind up with a system that psychologically is a bit easier on the human mind, and also allows you to vote in a way for each candidate you support based on how much you support them..

On our ballot last week was ranked choice voting. I predicted it would pass. Quite surprised that it did not. Maine has had it for a while now.

Vinny

Yeah it is really hard to find the perfectly fair system. Especially so since neither side really wants a perfectly fair system, they want the system that benefits them the most. Like why do we not just use popular vote already? Electoral college was created to solve problems that no longer exist. But a certain party would almost never win the presidency if we used popular vote, so they would fight tooth and nail to keep the electoral college, even though it really is a silly archaic system to use in this day and age. Anybody that believes that either side wants fairness is fooling themselves. I mean let's look at it this way, Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college, but nobody questions him losing the popular vote, they only question him losing the electoral college. Similarly, Republicans did well in the house and senate races, you don't see anyone claiming fraud there, even though it was those same exact ballots that voted Republicans into the house and senate. Why is that? Why would democrats fraud the presidency for them, but skip over congress? Doesn't that seem rather convenient?

[doodle]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

In a Slack discussion at work someone mentioned something like a 5 star score, rank each candidate by 1-5 stars. Mainly he said this as a way to help get more third party participation, if you have say 5 presidential candidates it would be difficult to pick only 1. The human mind doesn't handle non-binary choices very well. So by doing a rank all 5 you wind up with a system that psychologically is a bit easier on the human mind, and also allows you to vote in a way for each candidate you support based on how much you support them..

On our ballot last week was ranked choice voting. I predicted it would pass. Quite surprised that it did not. Maine has had it for a while now.

Vinny

Yeah it is really hard to find the perfectly fair system. Especially so since neither side really wants a perfectly fair system, they want the system that benefits them the most. Like why do we not just use popular vote already? Electoral college was created to solve problems that no longer exist. But a certain party would almost never win the presidency if we used popular vote, so they would fight tooth and nail to keep the electoral college, even though it really is a silly archaic system to use in this day and age. Anybody that believes that either side wants fairness is fooling themselves. I mean let's look at it this way, Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college, but nobody questions him losing the popular vote, they only question him losing the electoral college. Similarly, Republicans did well in the house and senate races, you don't see anyone claiming fraud there, even though it was those same exact ballots that voted Republicans into the house and senate. Why is that? Why would democrats fraud the presidency for them, but skip over congress? Doesn't that seem rather convenient?

Yeah, and Thomas Jefferson thought a countrys constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. This "originalism" that has gained popularity today where we want to divine and interpret the intentions of 18th century men in order to govern a 21st century nation is quite nonsensical to me.

We need a constitutional rewrite. I think Chile (Latin Americas most stable democracy) is currently undertaking such a project right now.

[pmward]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a "how much do you actually care" filter on voting.

In a Slack discussion at work someone mentioned something like a 5 star score, rank each candidate by 1-5 stars. Mainly he said this as a way to help get more third party participation, if you have say 5 presidential candidates it would be difficult to pick only 1. The human mind doesn't handle non-binary choices very well. So by doing a rank all 5 you wind up with a system that psychologically is a bit easier on the human mind, and also allows you to vote in a way for each candidate you support based on how much you support them..

On our ballot last week was ranked choice voting. I predicted it would pass. Quite surprised that it did not. Maine has had it for a while now.

Vinny

Yeah it is really hard to find the perfectly fair system. Especially so since neither side really wants a perfectly fair system, they want the system that benefits them the most. Like why do we not just use popular vote already? Electoral college was created to solve problems that no longer exist. But a certain party would almost never win the presidency if we used popular vote, so they would fight tooth and nail to keep the electoral college, even though it really is a silly archaic system to use in this day and age. Anybody that believes that either side wants fairness is fooling themselves. I mean let's look at it this way, Trump lost the popular vote and the electoral college, but nobody questions him losing the popular vote, they only question him losing the electoral college. Similarly, Republicans did well in the house and senate races, you don't see anyone claiming fraud there, even though it was those same exact ballots that voted Republicans into the house and senate. Why is that? Why would democrats fraud the presidency for them, but skip over congress? Doesn't that seem rather convenient?

Yeah, and Thomas Jefferson thought a countrys constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. This "originalism" that has gained popularity today where we want to divine and interpret the intentions of 18th century men in order to govern a 21st century nation is quite nonsensical to me.

We need a constitutional rewrite. I think Chile (Latin Americas most stable democracy) is currently undertaking such a project right now.

As long as "originalism" benefits a party they will fight for it. The moment it no longer benefits them, they will throw it out (or at least pick and choose like they do today what to fight for and what to conveniently ignore).

[flyingpylon]

Is there an issue with Mueller's findings? That guy seems like the most uptight keep it on the straight and narrow type of guy...he never breaks character.

I'm astounded that you could even ask that question.

For starters: Mueller's entire case was founded on the Steele dossier, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.

There's more of course. That'll be in Lesson Two, once you've managed to wrap your head around Lesson One.

Mueller's report debunked the Steele dossier. Where do you get your information from?

LOL... do you work for the New York Times or something? CNN or Washington Post maybe? Your response to something Sophie didn't say is right out of their playbook.

[doodle]

Is there an issue with Mueller's findings? That guy seems like the most uptight keep it on the straight and narrow type of guy...he never breaks character.

I'm astounded that you could even ask that question.

For starters: Mueller's entire case was founded on the Steele dossier, which turned out to be a complete fabrication.

There's more of course. That'll be in Lesson Two, once you've managed to wrap your head around Lesson One.

Mueller's report debunked the Steele dossier. Where do you get your information from?

LOL... do you work for the New York Times or something? CNN or Washington Post maybe? Your response to something Sophie didn't say is right out of their playbook.

You guys are cracking me up. Have you even browsed the contents of the report? Do you work for Newsmax or something?

[doodle]

Sophie said his report was founded on Steele Dossier. That is categorically false.

[doodle]

I'm not denying Clinton's involvement with the dossier, btw. I'm saying that linking the Dossier and Mueller's report is hogwash. And if Mueller weren't such a damn professional who refused to extrapolate anything or even initiate criminal charges I think Trump would have been in even hotter water.

[doodle]

Anyways, we will see if Trump steps down and has Pence pardon him before leaving office or if he attempts to pardon himself. It looks like he will be facing quite some legal battles when he emerges into civilian life again.

[ahhrunforthehills]

I often wondered if Biden selected Kamala so that the GOP would be less likely to try to impeach him if they got control of the House. Kamala makes Biden look good.

[Xan]

Yeah, and Thomas Jefferson thought a countrys constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. This "originalism" that has gained popularity today where we want to divine and interpret the intentions of 18th century men in order to govern a 21st century nation is quite nonsensical to me.

We need a constitutional rewrite. I think Chile (Latin Americas most stable democracy) is currently undertaking such a project right now.

Your position isn't sensical. Belief in originalism would argue FOR the rewrite you want. If, on the other hand, words written on a page and agreed to can be reinterpreted to mean absolutely anything you want, then no rewrite would ever be necessary.

I simply don't understand non-originalist arguments. How can the law that applies be anything other than what the lawmakers wrote and meant at the time?

[doodle]

Yeah, and Thomas Jefferson thought a countrys constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. This "originalism" that has gained popularity today where we want to divine and interpret the intentions of 18th century men in order to govern a 21st century nation is quite nonsensical to me.

We need a constitutional rewrite. I think Chile (Latin Americas most stable democracy) is currently undertaking such a project right now.

Your position isn't sensical. Belief in originalism would argue FOR the rewrite you want. If, on the other hand, words written on a page and agreed to can be reinterpreted to mean absolutely anything you want, then no rewrite would ever be necessary.

I simply don't understand non-originalist arguments. How can the law that applies be anything other than what the lawmakers wrote and meant at the time?

How so? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even involved in writing constitution ...that was merely his opinion. How does originalism argue for rewrite?

I'm saying that originalism as opposed to interpreting document in light of current times, culture and society....what some call judicial activism...either way, it's an interpretation of an imperfect document. Originalists are applying their beliefs and opinions in many ways the same as the activists.

We the people...people is collective in that sentence

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed....is that people individual or collective?

The fact is it's up for interpretation...should that be done trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago or looking at the issue in light of the 21st century?

[Xan]

How so? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even involved in writing constitution ...that was merely his opinion. How does originalism argue for rewrite?

I'm saying that if you want a constitutional rewrite, then the philosophy of originalism helps you. If you believe that you can dream up whatever, then no rewrite would be needed. And I presume that if there were a rewrite, you would be an originalist regarding your rewrite.

The fact is it's up for interpretation...should that be done trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago or looking at the issue in light of the 21st century?

It absolutely should be done by trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago. No doubt at all. If you want to change it, then change it. But not by a wink and a nod. Let's actually have the debate rather than "reinterpreting" anything.

[doodle]

How so? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even involved in writing constitution ...that was merely his opinion. How does originalism argue for rewrite?

I'm saying that if you want a constitutional rewrite, then the philosophy of originalism helps you. If you believe that you can dream up whatever, then no rewrite would be needed. And I presume that if there were a rewrite, you would be an originalist regarding your rewrite.

The fact is it's up for interpretation...should that be done trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago or looking at the issue in light of the 21st century?

It absolutely should be done by trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago. No doubt at all. If you want to change it, then change it. But not by a wink and a nod. Let's actually have the debate rather than "reinterpreting" anything.

Whatever you want to call it, both are interpretations...I'd say it's more radical to try to figure out how men 250 years ago were thinking. We can disagree on that...justices on supreme court do.

I'm not following your originalism supports rewrite argument. Originalism being way of interpreting document. I don't see what that has to do with rewrite.

[doodle]

The fact that constitution is kind of messy and requires so much divining and interpretations supports a rewrite....at least a touch up....it's supposed to be a living document after all. I think our founding fathers would be shocked that we still adhere to it so closely as if it were handed down unto us from God himself.

[ahhrunforthehills]

How so? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even involved in writing constitution ...that was merely his opinion. How does originalism argue for rewrite?

I'm saying that if you want a constitutional rewrite, then the philosophy of originalism helps you. If you believe that you can dream up whatever, then no rewrite would be needed. And I presume that if there were a rewrite, you would be an originalist regarding your rewrite.

The fact is it's up for interpretation...should that be done trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago or looking at the issue in light of the 21st century?

It absolutely should be done by trying to divine the intentions of men living 250 years ago. No doubt at all. If you want to change it, then change it. But not by a wink and a nod. Let's actually have the debate rather than "reinterpreting" anything.

Whatever you want to call it, both are interpretations...I'd say it's more radical to try to figure out how men 250 years ago were thinking. We can disagree on that...justices on supreme court do.

I'm not following your originalism supports rewrite argument. Originalism being way of interpreting document. I don't see what that has to do with rewrite.

Congress is given the power to amend the constitution. What is the problem?

The problem is that politicians can't get the votes so they try to change it through the Supreme Court, no?

[pmward]

The fact that constitution is kind of messy and requires so much divining and interpretations supports a rewrite....at least a touch up....it's supposed to be a living document after all. I think our founding fathers would be shocked that we still adhere to it so closely as if it were handed down unto us from God himself.

I think our founding fathers would be shocked that we adhere to it as little as we do, the constitution is a deceleration of unalienable rights handed down (by god) or representing the underling nature of freedom, it was set up to protect us from government... what freedom do you want the government to take away from us in the great reinterpretation of original intent? (and good grief why)..

Not saying I'm necessarily in favor of rewriting it, but do we not already reinterpret these documents as we go? Legally is the constitution not already viewed as a "living document"? Do both sides not already intentionally (mis)interpret these documents in whatever way benefits their unique agenda? Do both sides not already turn their heads on parts of these documents that do not back their agenda? We are already there, imo.