Democrats and Democracy

[Chuck Naill]

Mr. Brooks, like me, is a conservative. He also like me, never supported a Trump candidacy. I like what he says here and I think some of you will find it resonates with you as well.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/o...smid=url-share

[kazoolaw]

"So we rely on the Democrats to preserve our system of government." [1st para of linked article.\]
Start with an error and it's errors all the way down.
See, Preserve, protect and defend https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread...ect-and-defend

[Chuck Naill]

As always, the context is key to understanding the point, "When it comes to elections, the Republican Party operates within a carapace of lies. ". Do you disagree and if so, why?

[TSherbs]

Pretty good article. A little breezy, but I see his point. Especially about local election officials and those boards that are part of the certification process on the county level.

And yeah, these giant bills in Congress drive me batty.

[TSherbs]

Another article on the topic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...iotism/621377/

[Chuck Naill]

Another article on the topic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...iotism/621377/

Good concept. I was immediately reminded on Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address where he went back 40 score and 7 or 87 years to the original concept of freedom for all. John Wilkes did more damage than he ever envisioned. I suspect reconstruction would have not resulted in the Southern concept of freedom to come about.

" In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
G. Wallace

[manoeuver]

Brooks is a millimeter to the right of Hillary Clinton. I do not identify as a conservative, but I know one when I see one. Brooks ain't it. Being the token conservative at the NYT is like being a tablespoon of water in a tank of gasoline.

The democrats he bends over backward to defend would roll him up in a rug with the rest of the deplorables and toss him off a cliff immediately in defense of any of their revolting narratives, and he'd deserve it.

ad hominems aside, the article is riddled with BS, from his bootlicking aquiescence to COVID-excused goalpost moving (sorry, fortifying democracy) to his autocratic top-down approach to solving problems that are local at their very core.

How do you write an article about systemic election problems without bringing up transparency? Garbage article from a toothless cog in the leftist war machine.

(a little later maybe I'll tell you how I really feel about it.)

[Chuck Naill]

Obviously, you’ve never read the Times or Brooks.

William F. Buckley was his mentor. I prefer a conservative Iike Brooks and George Will, but we all have to decide those things for ourselves.

[TSherbs]

Brooks is a millimeter to the right of Hillary Clinton. I do not identify as a conservative, but I know one when I see one. Brooks ain't it. Being the token conservative at the NYT is like being a tablespoon of water in a tank of gasoline.

The democrats he bends over backward to defend would roll him up in a rug with the rest of the deplorables and toss him off a cliff immediately in defense of any of their revolting narratives, and he'd deserve it.

ad hominems aside, the article is riddled with BS, from his bootlicking aquiescence to COVID-excused goalpost moving (sorry, fortifying democracy) to his autocratic top-down approach to solving problems that are local at their very core.

How do you write an article about systemic election problems without bringing up transparency? Garbage article from a toothless cog in the leftist war machine.

(a little later maybe I'll tell you how I really feel about it.)

What transparency do you mean?

[manoeuver]

Obviously, you’ve never read the Times or Brooks.

William F. Buckley was his mentor. I prefer a conservative Iike Brooks and George Will, but we all have to decide those things for ourselves.

Again, I suppose I do not prefer conservatives with a strong statist bent like the guys you've mentioned. I've read Brooks, not often, he turns my stomach every time.

To assert I've never read the Times is very silly. I read it daily 20 years ago, I don't bother now as they've absolutely squandered any credibility they had (over Orange Hitler Bad for eff sakes.)
I don't take a word they print without a heroic dose of salt, they're political actors, absolute hacks at the Times.

I suppose in the name of good faith I ought to retract my no true scotsman criticism of Brooks. So I will. I maintain he's an establishment shill and his Democrat ass-sucking is revolting.

It's important to note whatever I say comes from my admittedly extreme anti-authoritarian viewpoint. I have said out loud I wished Rand Paul wasn't such a statist. From my viewpoint Brooks is practically a Clinton surrogate.

I understand how that probably seems insane to most normal folks. Thank you for your patience.

[manoeuver]

What transparency do you mean?

Easily auditable elections without the possibility for or appearance of shenanigans. Accountability and consequences for anyone who tries to meddle.

Elections should be decided by quick and accurate counting free of political interference. So many of our elections are decided by lawsuits, you'd think we'd have learned our lesson in 2000.

Our system is a laughingstock.

[Chuck Naill]

It actually worked very well for everyone except one. How would you make it better? I don't expect a straight answer.

[manoeuver]

It actually worked very well for everyone except one. How would you make it better? I don't expect a straight answer.

"Worked very well" is a synonym for "Our guy won."

Straight answer: look at the election policies of developed countries who do not have the problems we have. There are many such examples.
Here's a quick bullet list of improvements we could make off the top of my head:

• Require ID
• Paper ballots
• Totals tallied at the voting locations

You seem to intimate that our elections can't be improved or it would be some herculean task. Bullshit. It's counting for fucks sake.

I posit that DNC and GOP party hacks actually prefer murky and incoherent election policies as they are easier to manipulate. It's toxic.

[TSherbs]

What transparency do you mean?

Easily auditable elections without the possibility for or appearance of shenanigans.

I'm am in the understanding that audits are done every year in every state. They are "easily done" and, I thought, required by state laws. These are submitted to states attorneys general (is my understanding). Been that way for a while now. My guess is that the reports are a matter of public record (but I don't really know).

I'm not sure what you mean beyond what is already done.

I'd like a national holiday to vote, and I would like to have universally available mail-in and/or electronic voting. We actually don't do much to encourage voter participation for the working class (especially not compared to some other countries).

[Chuck Naill]

It actually worked very well for everyone except one. How would you make it better? I don't expect a straight answer.

"Worked very well" is a synonym for "Our guy won."

Straight answer: look at the election policies of developed countries who do not have the problems we have. There are many such examples.
Here's a quick bullet list of improvements we could make off the top of my head:

• Require ID
• Paper ballots
• Totals tallied at the voting locations

You seem to intimate that our elections can't be improved or it would be some herculean task. Bullshit. It's counting for fucks sake.

I posit that DNC and GOP party hacks actually prefer murky and incoherent election policies as they are easier to manipulate. It's toxic.

I asked how you would improve, not more profanity and stupid personal attacks. Do you have a reading challenge?

Biden did win. Brady did loose his last football game. He didn't claim otherwise.

[manoeuver]

What transparency do you mean?

Easily auditable elections without the possibility for or appearance of shenanigans.

I'm am in the understanding that audits are done every year in every state. They are "easily done" and, I thought, required by state laws. These are submitted to states attorneys general (is my understanding). Been that way for a while now. My guess is that the reports are a matter of public record (but I don't really know).

I'm not sure what you mean beyond what is already done.

I'd like a national holiday to vote, and I would like to have universally available mail-in and/or electronic voting. We actually don't do much to encourage voter participation for the working class (especially not compared to some other countries).

TSherbs, looks like you know more about the auditing process than I do so I'll defer to you on that, but it seems to me good transparent auditing would mostly eliminate the extremely damaging controversies around elections.

I think a holiday is probably a good idea, I would likely get behind that.

Mail-in voting is a question mark for me. Chain of custody of ballots is a huge opportunity for shenanigans. This is why I also oppose ballot harvesting; it's ripe for cheating.

I maintain electronic voting is a terrible idea. I don't even like the electronic voting machines used at many polling places now. Remote electronic voting is a total non-starter for me.

Voting should be easy but not effortless. One should care enough about voting to show up at a place at a time to participate.

[Chuck Naill]

Mail in voting was important given the pandemic. Paper ballots have a good history including military use. People think otherwise because of conspiracies. I never heard of a concern before Trump made it one.

When I moved, I was asked if I wanted to register to vote. I didn't initiate. I always use early voting.

[manoeuver]

It actually worked very well for everyone except one. How would you make it better? I don't expect a straight answer.

"Worked very well" is a synonym for "Our guy won."

Straight answer: look at the election policies of developed countries who do not have the problems we have. There are many such examples.
Here's a quick bullet list of improvements we could make off the top of my head:

• Require ID
• Paper ballots
• Totals tallied at the voting locations

You seem to intimate that our elections can't be improved or it would be some herculean task. Bullshit. It's counting for fucks sake.

I posit that DNC and GOP party hacks actually prefer murky and incoherent election policies as they are easier to manipulate. It's toxic.

I asked how you would improve, not more profanity and stupid personal attacks. Do you have a reading challenge?

Biden did win. Brady did loose his last football game. He didn't claim otherwise.

Did you miss my bulleted list of improvements? Here it is again, try not to miss it, I'll even make it bigger for you.

• Require ID
• Paper ballots
• Totals tallied at the voting locations

Obviously Biden won, he's in the White House. Who claimed otherwise? Not I.

If you had any rhetorical skill whatsoever I wouldn't entertain myself with the personal jabs.

If you know anyone who shares your views who is good at arguing please refer them here as you are fucking boring.

[dneal]

I never watch broadcast TV, but I turned it on today to check on the forecast of our snowstorm. ABC comes in best, and our local affiliate is the best of the networks for weather.

Lo and behold, "The View" was on. They were talking about some politician, pro-life / pro-choice viewpoints, etc... Whatever. Then Joy Behar adds: "That's what I don't understand about Gorsuch. He's supposed to be pro-life, but he won't wear a mask..."

It was an odd comment that had no bearing on the conversation. Just some random snide remark that demonstrated a lack of a capacity for context, reason, reasonableness, and other things. An addled brain, poisoned with blue kook-aide and only capable of woke nonsense and quips. It reminded me of a certain poster in certain an internet forum.

[manoeuver]

I never watch broadcast TV, but I turned it on today to check on the forecast of our snowstorm. ABC comes in best, and our local affiliate is the best of the networks for weather.

Lo and behold, "The View" was on. They were talking about some politician, pro-life / pro-choice viewpoints, etc... Whatever. Then Joy Behar adds: "That's what I don't understand about Gorsuch. He's supposed to be pro-life, but he won't wear a mask..."

It was an odd comment that had no bearing on the conversation. Just some random snide remark that demonstrated a lack of a capacity for context, reason, reasonableness, and other things. An addled brain, poisoned with blue kook-aide and only capable of woke nonsense and quips. It reminded me of a certain poster in certain an internet forum.

on Thanksgiving my in-laws had the Macy's parade on, it occurred to me that network TV is a sewer pipe millions of people allow to flow into their homes. revolting.