U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

13738394042

Comments

  • tom_g said:
    Dear Jeff Sessions - Does the FBI, and the Dept of Justice more broadly, need purged?  Purged?
    The new-norms that these people are trying to set with their extreme partisanship spells out a terrible future for America.  From the outside (sort of) looking in, I feel like I'm watching the fall of Rome....
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Having read a book on the fall of the Roman Republic recently (insert Storm before the Storm rec here), I can safely say that we are not there yet. Maybe if one of the generals orchestrated a successful coup and instilled themselves as dictator for life I’d be concerned about that outcome. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    Well what do you know, a Democrat has to resort to cheating to win an election
    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/random-drawing-for-virginia-house-race-delayed.html

    This ballot is not ambigous at all, the voters intent is clear, so it’s a tie vote and should go to drawing. Instead this democrat is demanding voter suppression from a judge so she wins on a one vote margin, and that’s exactly what it is, a strike through is a sign of showing you marked in error, and this ballot is marked for republicans down the ballot. So when a court ruled the ballot was wrongfully excluded then that means it must be counted. But apparently the Democrat in this case would rather herself be installed illegally rather then win fair and square
    Frakkin TFlukes
  • Not sure that I would call challenging a ballet - cheating.  Nor would I call taking it to court - illegal.
    JaimieT
  • I just looked at the image (didn’t read the article) and I don’t have a problem with this going to a judge. The questionable aspect is the way he or she both filled in the bubble and struck through the vote for governor. So you have lines drawn through a completed bubble for governor which is likely not to nullify that vote, and a line struck through the other vote which is argued to be a nullification of that selection.

    I could get behind excluding it as a double-vote for that office, or behind counting it as a vote for the GOP candidate. I don’t think it’s a black-and-white call.

    I imagine the voter initially marked candidates with an X or \ and then realized the error and filled in the bubbles or something which makes the whole thing questionable. I don’t know how else the governor vote got marked that way.

    Your votes count sometimes folks, so get out there next election, and if you flub a ballot like this ask for a new one so people don’t have to imagine your intent.
    JaimieT
  • tom_g said:
    Not sure that I would call challenging a ballet - cheating.  Nor would I call taking it to court - illegal.
    But he's gotta keep pushing that narrative!
  • If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.
    voodoorat
  • UnderwoodUnderwood Philadelphia, PA
    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

    In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!



     Trump is truly, the least intelligent person to ever hold the presidency. What an utter embarrassment.
  • LordBy said:
    If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.
    Not to mention it WAS initially excluded, the republican candidate sued to get it counted, a 3-judge panel agreed, and now the democratic candidate is basically appealing that decision to overturn the initial decision to exclude the ballot. There's nothing illegal here at all. 

    Did the person want to vote republican? In all likelihood, yes. Is that ballot (here if you're interested - ) remotely clear? No. As noted above, the vote for the governor looks pretty similar to the vote for the democratic candidate. Did this person want to cancel their vote for governor? Who fucking knows? Whether or not this vote should count is certainly something that reasonable people can disagree about. Nothing wrong with taking it to the courts, especially when we have no idea if other, similar ballots have also been excluded. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    LordBy said:
    If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.

    I wish we could call him/her up and ask them what they meant.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    tom_g said:
    Dear Jeff Sessions - Does the FBI, and the Dept of Justice more broadly, need purged?  Purged?
    The new-norms that these people are trying to set with their extreme partisanship spells out a terrible future for America.  From the outside (sort of) looking in, I feel like I'm watching the fall of Rome....
    Well Rome began to fall due to an increasing central bureaucracy, increased barbarian immigration including using barbarians to fill military ranks, extreme public subsidy of entertainment venues, and increasingly higher taxes to support all of it, and the increasing central bureaucracy over local officials created a scenario where people ceased viewing central taxes as legitimate. I mean if you wanted to draw modern parallels
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    LordBy said:
    If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.
    I don’t think it’s circumstantial at all, the canvassing board should not have excluded it to start with. 

    I think the republican already won the initial count, and this one vote for the democrat majority came on recount, so already we are talking a scenario where the democrat didn’t win with a mandate, so taking a second look at excluded ballots is absolutely in order. 

    Simonds isn’t even contesting the intent of the voter, her legal filing has stipulated the voter intended to vote R, she wants it suppressed on procedural grounds 

    personally, I think the easiest solution is to simply discontinue the use of recounts unless one can prove impropriety in counting. I mean back in 2004 Washingtonians went to polls and elected Dino Rossi governor and then the most democratic County in the state began “finding” uncounted ballots, a recount was done, Rossi still won, more “found ballots” then the democrat won. Amazing. Maybe the real solution here is to end mandatory recounts and require cause to recount. What caused an 11 vote shift between first and second count in this race? 
  • LordByLordBy Utah
    edited December 2017
    LordBy said:
    If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.
    I don’t think it’s circumstantial at all, the canvassing board should not have excluded it to start with. 

    I think the republican already won the initial count, and this one vote for the democrat majority came on recount, so already we are talking a scenario where the democrat didn’t win with a mandate, so taking a second look at excluded ballots is absolutely in order. 

    Simonds isn’t even contesting the intent of the voter, her legal filing has stipulated the voter intended to vote R, she wants it suppressed on procedural grounds 

    personally, I think the easiest solution is to simply discontinue the use of recounts unless one can prove impropriety in counting. I mean back in 2004 Washingtonians went to polls and elected Dino Rossi governor and then the most democratic County in the state began “finding” uncounted ballots, a recount was done, Rossi still won, more “found ballots” then the democrat won. Amazing. Maybe the real solution here is to end mandatory recounts and require cause to recount. What caused an 11 vote shift between first and second count in this race? 

    While President Gore may agree with you, I think the predictable error rate in the first rush-count is more reason to support recounts in super-close races, not less reason.

    The quick, cheap, and dirty initial count is fine for the vast majority of races so I wouldn’t argue that it’s worth spending a lot of resources to address. Recounts in the very close ones are a reasonable way to handle the inaccuracies in initial counts.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    LordBy said:
    LordBy said:
    If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.
    I don’t think it’s circumstantial at all, the canvassing board should not have excluded it to start with. 

    I think the republican already won the initial count, and this one vote for the democrat majority came on recount, so already we are talking a scenario where the democrat didn’t win with a mandate, so taking a second look at excluded ballots is absolutely in order. 

    Simonds isn’t even contesting the intent of the voter, her legal filing has stipulated the voter intended to vote R, she wants it suppressed on procedural grounds 

    personally, I think the easiest solution is to simply discontinue the use of recounts unless one can prove impropriety in counting. I mean back in 2004 Washingtonians went to polls and elected Dino Rossi governor and then the most democratic County in the state began “finding” uncounted ballots, a recount was done, Rossi still won, more “found ballots” then the democrat won. Amazing. Maybe the real solution here is to end mandatory recounts and require cause to recount. What caused an 11 vote shift between first and second count in this race? 

    While President Gore may agree with you, I think the predictable error rate in the first rush-count is more reason to support recounts in super-close races, not less reason.

    The quick, cheap, and dirty initial count is fine for the vast majority of races so I wouldn’t argue that it’s worth spending a lot of resources to address. Recounts in the very close ones are a reasonable way to handle the inaccuracies in initial counts.
    These counts should be done with machines, if the machine is properly working there shouldn’t be a margin of error. 

    i just find it interesting that the party that screams voter suppression and vote fraud is a myth, is backing a candidate who says a vote should be discarded even though she doesn’t contest the voter voted for her opponent, because it means a tied race basically. 

    I mean how anti-democratic is that? 
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    @emnofseattle  "Simonds isn’t even contesting the intent of the voter, her legal filing has stipulated the voter intended to vote R"
    "candidate who says a vote should be discarded even though she doesn’t contest the voter voted for her opponent"

    This is a nonsensical claim. Do you have a source for it, or is this an alternative fact?

    I have only seen Simonds saying that she won fair and square, and that this ballot was an overvote (spoiled ballot) that should not have been allowed back in after the fact.

    You may dismiss Simonds contesting the spoiled ballot on "procedural grounds" (violating Virginia law), but Yancey, the Republican incumbent, is the one who pulled a fast one here. He did not challenge this ballot during the recount process -- which is the purpose of the recount. The recount declared Simonds the winner by one vote, then Yancey came back the next day with this particular ballot that had previously been discarded. Choosing the winner of an election by random draw is anti-democratic, to use your words, and it -- along with admission of overvotes after a concluded recount -- sets bad precedent for the integrity of our election process.



  • LordBy said:
    LordBy said:
    If it weren’t a one vote margin, then I think it’d be excluded without controversy because clearly two bubbles are filled in and the ballot instructions on the top are plain. So if you’re not going to have circumstantial justice it should probably still be exluded. Then again, you don’t want to disenfranchise someone if you can avoid it and nobody likes an election decided by random drawing so I see the other arguement.
    I don’t think it’s circumstantial at all, the canvassing board should not have excluded it to start with. 

    I think the republican already won the initial count, and this one vote for the democrat majority came on recount, so already we are talking a scenario where the democrat didn’t win with a mandate, so taking a second look at excluded ballots is absolutely in order. 

    Simonds isn’t even contesting the intent of the voter, her legal filing has stipulated the voter intended to vote R, she wants it suppressed on procedural grounds 

    personally, I think the easiest solution is to simply discontinue the use of recounts unless one can prove impropriety in counting. I mean back in 2004 Washingtonians went to polls and elected Dino Rossi governor and then the most democratic County in the state began “finding” uncounted ballots, a recount was done, Rossi still won, more “found ballots” then the democrat won. Amazing. Maybe the real solution here is to end mandatory recounts and require cause to recount. What caused an 11 vote shift between first and second count in this race? 

    While President Gore may agree with you, I think the predictable error rate in the first rush-count is more reason to support recounts in super-close races, not less reason.

    The quick, cheap, and dirty initial count is fine for the vast majority of races so I wouldn’t argue that it’s worth spending a lot of resources to address. Recounts in the very close ones are a reasonable way to handle the inaccuracies in initial counts.
    These counts should be done with machines, if the machine is properly working there shouldn’t be a margin of error. 

    i just find it interesting that the party that screams voter suppression and vote fraud is a myth, is backing a candidate who says a vote should be discarded even though she doesn’t contest the voter voted for her opponent, because it means a tied race basically. 

    I mean how anti-democratic is that? 
    A machine would definitely discard the ballot in question as an overvote. Machines can and do count a lot of votes, I think they leave the questionable ones in the “reject” pile to go through in case of a recount. Makes sense to me,
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    edited December 2017
    This story NYT published today! One of the big anti-Mueller FBI talking points is that the investigation is bogus to begin with because it was all started based on the "dodgy dossier." NYT basically destroyed that argument with the story of a Trump campaign adviser who got drunk one night in London with an Australian diplomat and bragged that he'd been in contact with a Russian who told him that Russia had Hillary's emails. The Aussie passed that info along to the FBI and that's one of the things that got the investigation going. Same campaign adviser continued to pursue relationships with Russians in the hope of setting up a meeting between Trump and Putin. And he was in constant contact with the campaign. After the Russian told him about HRC's emails, he told Stephen Miller (The Nazi speechwriter with the ratty face) that he had "interesting messages coming from Moscow." 

    From Trump's interview with the same paper yesterday: 


    pavlovsbellCretanBull
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    @Frakkin T  I was just about to post that NYT story. So much for Trump's claim that HRC got the FBI to start a bogus investigation based on a questionable dossier. The timeline is just too juicy. Expect rage tweeting to commence as soon as Trump learns about this from Fox News.
    Frakkin TCretanBull
  • Frakkin T said:

    Reading this made my brain hurt.
    Frakkin Ttom_g
  • drip, drip, drip

    2018 is gonna be quite interesting
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY

    Frakkin T said:
    This story NYT published today! One of the big anti-Mueller FBI talking points is that the investigation is bogus to begin with because it was all started based on the "dodgy dossier." NYT basically destroyed that argument with the story of a Trump campaign adviser who got drunk one night in London with an Australian diplomat and bragged that he'd been in contact with a Russian who told him that Russia had Hillary's emails. The Aussie passed that info along to the FBI and that's one of the things that got the investigation going. Same campaign adviser continued to pursue relationships with Russians in the hope of setting up a meeting between Trump and Putin. And he was in constant contact with the campaign. After the Russian told him about HRC's emails, he told Stephen Miller (The Nazi speechwriter with the ratty face) that he had "interesting messages coming from Moscow." 

    From Trump's interview with the same paper yesterday: 


    What? That's totally how an innocent person in complete control of his mental faculties speaks.


    Frakkin TCretanBull
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    edited December 2017
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    Dee said:


    Look at that face! How can you not confess to a treasonous conspiracy when you're looking in those eyes?
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Frakkin T said:
    This story NYT published today! One of the big anti-Mueller FBI talking points is that the investigation is bogus to begin with because it was all started based on the "dodgy dossier." NYT basically destroyed that argument with the story of a Trump campaign adviser who got drunk one night in London with an Australian diplomat and bragged that he'd been in contact with a Russian who told him that Russia had Hillary's emails. The Aussie passed that info along to the FBI and that's one of the things that got the investigation going. Same campaign adviser continued to pursue relationships with Russians in the hope of setting up a meeting between Trump and Putin. And he was in constant contact with the campaign. After the Russian told him about HRC's emails, he told Stephen Miller (The Nazi speechwriter with the ratty face) that he had "interesting messages coming from Moscow." 

    From Trump's interview with the same paper yesterday: 


    It's amazing how fast the NYT came out with a unsourced story after Lindsey Graham called for a special counsel on the Steele Dossier. 

    I mean this is the same paper that was once used by the KGB as a propaganda tool, so excuse me if I don't rush to believe anything they write. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    @emnofseattle  "Simonds isn’t even contesting the intent of the voter, her legal filing has stipulated the voter intended to vote R"
    "candidate who says a vote should be discarded even though she doesn’t contest the voter voted for her opponent"

    This is a nonsensical claim. Do you have a source for it, or is this an alternative fact?

    I have only seen Simonds saying that she won fair and square, and that this ballot was an overvote (spoiled ballot) that should not have been allowed back in after the fact.

    You may dismiss Simonds contesting the spoiled ballot on "procedural grounds" (violating Virginia law), but Yancey, the Republican incumbent, is the one who pulled a fast one here. He did not challenge this ballot during the recount process -- which is the purpose of the recount. The recount declared Simonds the winner by one vote, then Yancey came back the next day with this particular ballot that had previously been discarded. Choosing the winner of an election by random draw is anti-democratic, to use your words, and it -- along with admission of overvotes after a concluded recount -- sets bad precedent for the integrity of our election process.



    Choosing winner by lot is more democratic then choosing a candidate the majority of voters did not vote for because a ballot was illegally excluded. 

    And the reason for the timing was that an elections official who knew it hadn't been counted and told the campaign tuesday night about it, they were in court the next morning, and three appellate level judges agreed it should've been counted, so the elections department, barring a stay from the Supreme Court, must count it. I mean excluding a ballot illegally is also a violation of Virginia elections law I'm sure, hence why three judges said "count it" 

    I love her interview though, thanks for posting it. 

    "I feel I won" (so did Al Gore and Dino Rossi, what does that have to do with anything?) "This was a story about how every vote counted" (except apparently ones that serving judges determined were wrongfully excluded in an open judicial process) "this will create a precedent" (uhh Get a clue lady, go google "Washington Gubernatorial election 2004" the precedent is already there, if a county or candidate just suddenly starts finding ballots and courts sign off they're valid votes. )

    And if the Republican wins the draw she can file for another recount. so can the republican if she wins. 

    It seems she wants not the most just result, she merely only wants the singular result in her favor. 
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited December 2017
    Roy Moore had filed a lawsuit challenging the result of AL-Sen, for much more ridiculous reasons ("it's not fair that voters found out I used to prey on teenage girls!") than the VA House seat challenge. 

    So by @emnofseattle logic "well what do you know a republican had to restort to cheating to win an election har har"

    In the VA-94 race, the board of election is happy to make absolutely certain everything is done correctly before resorting to a random chance drawing. In a one-vote margin race why not?

    "The Board of Elections seemed glad to cancel the planned drawing, which involved old film canisters and a big bowl. “Drawing names is an action of last resort,” the board said in a statement. “Any substantive concerns regarding the election or recount should be resolved before a random drawing is conducted.”"
    JaimieT
  • tom_gtom_g WV
    edited December 2017
    No outrage over the many Republican secretary of state purges of the voter rolls, or, the extreme application of gerrymandering - just, recounts??  Good try.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    MrX said:
    Roy Moore had filed a lawsuit challenging the result of AL-Sen, for much more ridiculous reasons ("it's not fair that voters found out I used to prey on teenage girls!") than the VA House seat challenge. 

    So by @emnofseattle logic "well what do you know a republican had to restort to cheating to win an election har har"

    In the VA-94 race, the board of election is happy to make absolutely certain everything is done correctly before resorting to a random chance drawing. In a one-vote margin race why not?

    "The Board of Elections seemed glad to cancel the planned drawing, which involved old film canisters and a big bowl. “Drawing names is an action of last resort,” the board said in a statement. “Any substantive concerns regarding the election or recount should be resolved before a random drawing is conducted.”"
    Nobody other then Roy Moore is seriously challenging that he lost. 

    Va-94 is clearly a different story. 

    The lottery drawing has been rescheduled .
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited December 2017
    And on to more substantive matters, I would like to thank business insider for their courageous expose on a political scandal that's sure to rock the very foundation of our society! 

    It's PISTOLGATE

    See according to the business insider, the secretary of the Navy (a retired Marine Corps Aviator) visited some Marines in Afghanistan while *gasp* armed with a 9mm pistol!
    http://www.businessinsider.com/secnav-carrying-pistol-afghanistan-richard-v-spencer-2017-12

    Even worse, the Beretta was adopted after he left the military, so may not have even been qualified to operate a device simpler then an obsolete flip-cell phone

    Spencer was sworn in in August to become the Navy Secretary — a president-appointed and Senate-confirmed position held by a civilian to oversee all of the Navy's operations. As a former H-46 Sea Knight pilot in the US Marine Corps, Spencer would have most likely been familiar with a pistol; however, would most likely not have been the M9, which was fielded to the military after he completed his service.

    Btw, military pistol qualification is not difficult. a guy who goes to the range on the weekends can pass the military qualification course, contrary to what someone might believe watching hollywood, most people who carry pistols from the military to the FBI etc are not that great of shots unless they practice on their own time and dime. 

    I mean talk about slow news day.... 

    JaimieT
This discussion has been closed.