Can we agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

[TSherbs]

Did we all participate in democracy yesterday?

I voted several weeks ago. Used a drop box outside of my town hall on municipal grounds. I was able to track my ballot online. Awesome process. And for the first time, every person and referendum that I voted for won. 100% accordance with my votes. I have lived here 30+ years, and that has never (that I can recall) happened before. I voted straight blue ticket. Golden and Polloquin are locked in a tight one up north, but that is not my district.

We'll see what happens when Susan Collins comes up again. A fair portion of Maine, especially the women, will not have forgotten--or forgiven--her votes on the Supreme Court justices (especially Kavanaugh). Collins says that Kavanaugh lied to her. That is a really lame excuse because we all knew that he was lying. The lie simply gave her cover, and she pinched her nose and accepted the dirty offer. She'll never get my vote again, and there are a number of people who have sworn to bring her down. I actually think that she will announce that this is her last term (she has 4 more years).

[dneal]

"Winter is coming."

Yes. Enjoy your warm beverage.

Use of heating oil - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).png

[dneal]

If the argument is that the Trumpians are no different than the Democrats, the history since 2015 disagrees. It also disagrees with the Karl Rove and the Gingrich years where name calling were but a preview to the atrocities of Trumpian disrespect.

What the Democrats have done more often in history is to ensure that minorities' votes are allowed to occur and then be tallied. As Ted pointed out, the Republicans have failed to garner the majority of votes in a Presidental election since 2004. Their gerrymandering have resulted in stacking Republicans that do not represent the demographics and preferences of the electorate.

The deplorables have a different selective perception.

[Chuck Naill]

It seems to me the Republicans should begin with is offering voters something for which to get involved. Their romance with the Evangelicals did neither any good. If you are an Evangelical and you think you know the way and everyone else doesn't, the result isn't going to be good for either. The Evangelicals have ruined their reputation and ruined a good opportunity. I am not sure they can recover. No one wants women to be stoned for adultery today. The Republicans will say they do to get a vote.

Since folks are afraid to go to the polls to vote, early voting and mail ins are popular. If the Trumpian's left their firearms at home, maybe paper ballots would not be needed.

[Chuck Naill]

If the argument is that the Trumpians are no different than the Democrats, the history since 2015 disagrees. It also disagrees with the Karl Rove and the Gingrich years where name calling were but a preview to the atrocities of Trumpian disrespect.

What the Democrats have done more often in history is to ensure that minorities' votes are allowed to occur and then be tallied. As Ted pointed out, the Republicans have failed to garner the majority of votes in a Presidental election since 2004. Their gerrymandering have resulted in stacking Republicans that do not represent the demographics and preferences of the electorate.

The deplorables have a different selective perception.

Since you long for civil discussion, what is this?

[Chuck Naill]

It's cold in the Winter in those states.

[TSherbs]

It's cold in the Winter in those states.

Not today! 69F! (the warm air and rain from Nicole just blew through....)

[dneal]

If the argument is that the Trumpians are no different than the Democrats, the history since 2015 disagrees. It also disagrees with the Karl Rove and the Gingrich years where name calling were but a preview to the atrocities of Trumpian disrespect.

What the Democrats have done more often in history is to ensure that minorities' votes are allowed to occur and then be tallied. As Ted pointed out, the Republicans have failed to garner the majority of votes in a Presidental election since 2004. Their gerrymandering have resulted in stacking Republicans that do not represent the demographics and preferences of the electorate.

The deplorables have a different selective perception.

Since you long for civil discussion, what is this?

Simply pointing out that your history is selective, and one with a different bias could formulate an alternate one. Sorry that my humor was too subtle.

[Chuck Naill]

If the argument is that the Trumpians are no different than the Democrats, the history since 2015 disagrees. It also disagrees with the Karl Rove and the Gingrich years where name calling were but a preview to the atrocities of Trumpian disrespect.

What the Democrats have done more often in history is to ensure that minorities' votes are allowed to occur and then be tallied. As Ted pointed out, the Republicans have failed to garner the majority of votes in a Presidental election since 2004. Their gerrymandering have resulted in stacking Republicans that do not represent the demographics and preferences of the electorate.

The deplorables have a different selective perception.

Since you long for civil discussion, what is this?

Simply pointing out that your history is selective, and one with a different bias could formulate an alternate one. Sorry that my humor was too subtle.

No problem and of course I know Clinton said such. Romney said something similar re 43 percent, but your topic is voting and not what a candidate said.

In a perfect world, folks could be in and out in 15 minutes as I did Tuesday. I read that some stood in line for hours. In my former residence, I could vote early, but not now. As long as I am physically able, I prefer to go in person. I thanked the workers for showing up.

[dneal]

but your topic is voting and not what a candidate said.

You may of course address what the topic is, or what your characterization of the topic is. Oftentimes when one does the latter, it is defined as a straw man argument.

This seems to fit well here as well.

There’s a sort of test for commitment to reasoned debate. Does the person make a good faith effort to characterize opposing viewpoints accurately and, in whatever aspects are relevant to the topic at hand, completely? Does the person work cooperatively with their opponent to establish the clearest possible expression of their opponent’s position, and then proceed to argue against that? If not, then they’re not committed to reasoned debate, for no honest person interested in applying reason to find truths would see any point to arguing against a strawman, nor would they stoop to the purely political tactic of appealing to emotion rather than reason.

[Chuck Naill]

I've attempted to address your topic. I do not think there is any evidence to support your OP from recent events. If you want to whine and complain about my style of response, you're barking up the wrong tree. You and I have a history. It is what it is, D.

[kazoolaw]

If you are an Evangelical and you think you know the way and everyone else doesn't, the result isn't going to be good for either. The Evangelicals have ruined their reputation and ruined a good opportunity. .

Chuck, please explain what you mean by your use of the term "Evangelical."

[Chuck Naill]

If you are an Evangelical and you think you know the way and everyone else doesn't, the result isn't going to be good for either. The Evangelicals have ruined their reputation and ruined a good opportunity. .

Chuck, please explain what you mean by your use of the term "Evangelical."

It's been real busy here. I need to think about how to respond. I will follow up soon, Kaz.

[kazoolaw]

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

[Chuck Naill]

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Thank you for understanding kind sir.

[kazoolaw]

If you are an Evangelical and you think you know the way and everyone else doesn't, the result isn't going to be good for either. The Evangelicals have ruined their reputation and ruined a good opportunity. .

Chuck, please explain what you mean by your use of the term "Evangelical."

It's been real busy here. I need to think about how to respond. I will follow up soon, Kaz.

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Thank you for understanding kind sir.

I do understand that you have been real busy since September.

[Chuck Naill]

If you are an Evangelical and you think you know the way and everyone else doesn't, the result isn't going to be good for either. The Evangelicals have ruined their reputation and ruined a good opportunity. .

Chuck, please explain what you mean by your use of the term "Evangelical."

It's been real busy here. I need to think about how to respond. I will follow up soon, Kaz.

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Thank you for understanding kind sir.

I do understand that you have been real busy since September.

You're so kind and understanding, a credit to mankind. You must be a Liberal Democrat.

[dneal]

If you are an Evangelical and you think you know the way and everyone else doesn't, the result isn't going to be good for either. The Evangelicals have ruined their reputation and ruined a good opportunity. .

Chuck, please explain what you mean by your use of the term "Evangelical."

It's been real busy here. I need to think about how to respond. I will follow up soon, Kaz.

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Best wishes.

Thank you for understanding kind sir.

I do understand that you have been real busy since September.

You're so kind and understanding, a credit to mankind. You must be a Liberal Democrat.

Exhibit 4235

[TSherbs]

One big difference is that evidence shows clear Russian interference in the 2016 election (so the accusations were justified), but that there has been zero evidence to show ballot-fraud in the 2020 election (so the accusations are unjustified).

Neither political party is without flaw, what political party ever is. The rhetoric used by a lot of the more prominent Republicans shows that getting into power is far more important to them than fairness or even common decency.

Yes, I call the kind of posts that you are referring to as "false equivalencies."

Clearly, both parties overall trust the voting process in this country. Neither party is 100% happy, and everyone knows that it is imperfect to a very small degree. Generally speaking, most recently, Dems have trusted it *more* than the GOP. But it should be noted that many of the Republican individuals in charge of running or overseeing the voting process in their states--and the vetting system of the results--has high confidence in the system and its results.

As I have noted elsewhere, I truly believe that this is all a psychological problem, amplified on the internet and in the news sound-bite headlines. Since the 2020, when the delusional brain virus peaked, we have been returning to a more sober-minded outlook (yeah, that's a mixed metaphor that I don't feel like correcting). 60+ law suits failed, no "Kraken" of evidence was EVER produced (the references to it were bald lies), and the suggestion of such was criminal and helped foment an assault on the US Capitol in an attempt to interfere with the transfer of power to the winner of the election (also a criminal act). Judges and other officials repeatedly responded to these charges with, "You don't have any evidence." QED.

[TSherbs]

When HRC ran for president, she whined a bit after the election loss. That was disappointing, another sign of a weakness in her character. However, the complaint was not about the untrustworthiness of the voting system (unlike by the GOP in 2020 and even somewhat today). The complaint was that outside (foreign) entities were deluging social media with attempts to influence attitudes, behaviors, and even flood the zone occasionally with misinformation. Multiple persons within our federal intelligence service community have since testified that the evidence of this attempt to influence was certain and incontravertible. What was not clear, and the evidence much less certain about, was if Trump or any of his associates had any coordination with those attempts. I believe that he did NOT, and thus I--and many other Democrats--would not characterize that election as "stolen" or the process as "untrustworthy." The voting process was certified in every state, as it was again in 2020 and is now going through in 2022. The process works, the process is trusted. All this other bullshit is just smoke and mirrors and paranoia and the wounded responses of the weak character of those who lose, most notably by Donald Trump in 2020: as the Wall Street Journal recently labeled him, the big loser of them all.