US Politics Thread 2021-24

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Hospitals are required to report cases. It's not an option and it's not a particularly welcome change dictating modification of rooms and procedures, suspension of elective surgeries, shortages of PPE and parts to maintain the PPE. Staff having exposure anyway and self isolating creating staffing shortages, etc.

Its not that cases are required to be reported that is a problem.

It's the criteria being used coupled with the fact that humans are lazy. CDC at one point directed that if someone was lab-positive, those in close contact could be reported as cases even if they hadn't been confirmed.

Some places were reporting multiple positives of the same individual as multiple cases.

Some places were reporting "died with" the same as "died from," even when the cause of death was a car crash or brain cancer.

Some places were using PCR Ct in the 40s as the cutoff when studies from earlier in the year proved any Ct over (I seem to recall) 24 with the patient having contracted it more than a week prior to be not actual infective cases.

We also have cases that are cause positives because PCR tests were replicating viral debris from people who had covid and recovered weeks earlier.

We have instances of states dumping data showing thousands of "new" cases when many of those cases were from weeks or months prior to the data dump.

We have instances of medical facilities reporting everything as a covid case because of federal financial aid - and no one is going to go and look at diagnosis codes and recoup payments unless there public points out that the death was a "with covid-19" which had no bearing on the outcome, such as gang-involved shootings, car crashes involving catastrophic injury, etc.

Who is going to through all of this with a fine-toothed comb to correct it? Not one single hospital administrator or public health department bureaucrat is going to lift a finger.

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

Wow! now the Dems are going to pack the courts!

Yeah... that's what Hitler would do.

Nazi-Card. Remember?
You would not want me to point out that repeating lies over and over ("election was stolen." "my inauguration crowd was the biggest", "no one has ever done more for this country") was a move perfected by Goebbels.

Besides, Hitler would have just removed the judges he did not like and given them a new job & permanent address.

[August]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

There are very simple and easy ways to ensure no fraud occurs.

1. Require every adult to vote, by law, with a fine for not doing so.
2. Require every voter to show proof of ID and proof of signature.
3. Electronic voting machines must not be accessible unless you are physically connecting in person at the machine and manufacturers must publish source code in its entirety.
4. Electronic ballot counting machines must meet the same criteria as electronic voting machines.
5. The laws that are on the books in each state must be adhered to 100% with no exceptions and poll workers should be required by law to report all suspected instances of fraud.
6. All voter rolls must be 100% destroyed and everyone must reapply - it's the only way to eliminate dead people, out of state people, illegal aliens, or the possibility of exploiting the vulnerable.
7. All existing poll workers and supervisors of elections need to be removed from their duties until they've been properly trained.
8. Security cameras shall record over every counting station and shall be maintained for 5 years before being destroyed.
9. Ballots shall be maintained for 5 years before being destroyed.
10. Poll workers shall be randomly assigned from a pool to report to a polling station within 25 miles of their home.

1. Disagree. People should not be forced to vote. Democracy only works with interested and willing participants making informed choices. Anyone who has to be forced into it is not going to care.
2. Agree.
3-4. Meh. IMO there shouldn't be any scheme involving electronic balloting that does not produce a completed hard copy which can be examined by the voter to ensure it's accuracy before they put it into the counting machine. Those we keep for a decade in case anyone wants to go back and perform their own recount.
6. Agree that rolls should be regularly purged.
8. Agree.
9. A decade would be better.
10. Sounds complicated and expensive. Also how does that work in areas with more than 25 miles between poll locations?

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by August

1. Disagree. People should not be forced to vote. Democracy only works with interested and willing participants making informed choices. Anyone who has to be forced into it is not going to care.
2. Agree.
3-4. Meh. IMO there shouldn't be any scheme involving electronic balloting that does not produce a completed hard copy which can be examined by the voter to ensure it's accuracy before they put it into the counting machine. Those we keep for a decade in case anyone wants to go back and perform their own recount.
6. Agree that rolls should be regularly purged.
8. Agree.
9. A decade would be better.
10. Sounds complicated and expensive. Also how does that work in areas with more than 25 miles between poll locations?

As to required voting - Australia, for example, requires everyone to vote which equates to a voter turnout rate well above 90%, and this goes back to the 1920s. You won't get 100%, but the more you get, the less the possibility of shenanigans because there are fewer ballots you can play with.

No issue with voting spitting out a paper ballot record, but if it is electronic, it could easily be coded to spit out what the voter entered while electronically selecting a different candidate. The key is the source code needs to be auditable.

In regards to poll workers, it generally isn't an issue in less populated areas where everyone knows everyone else in the region.

Compare that to a place like Philly which has 700 polling places where the same workers have been in the same precincts forever and most of them are corrupt because of the Dem machine influence. You randomly assign poll workers to those precincts and now they don't know who they're working with so there is the unknown of whether or not coworkers are going to turn in crooked workers.

You make it so there is no possibility of collusion due to lack of familiarity amongst the people working and a smaller chance of corruption as a target of opportunity because you never know if the guy sitting next to you is going to report you for changing the count to favor one candidate over another.

[August]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

No issue with voting spitting out a paper ballot record, but if it is electronic, it could easily be coded to spit out what the voter entered while electronically selecting a different candidate. The key is the source code needs to be auditable.

Of course it can but that's the whole point of the paper ballot. It allows others to make their own counts later on. Bush v. Gore was a good example. Those Florida ballots were recounted something like a dozen times by various media organizations and investigators. It's much more difficult to get away with spinning paper ballot numbers. They are what they are and anyone can expose the lie if there is one. It's the reliance on electronics that opens the real opportunities for fraud and a whole lot harder to track published source codes or not.

In regards to poll workers, it generally isn't an issue in less populated areas where everyone knows everyone else in the region.

Compare that to a place like Philly which has 700 polling places where the same workers have been in the same precincts forever and most of them are corrupt because of the Dem machine influence. You randomly assign poll workers to those precincts and now they don't know who they're working with so there is the unknown of whether or not coworkers are going to turn in crooked workers.

You make it so there is no possibility of collusion due to lack of familiarity amongst the people working and a smaller chance of corruption as a target of opportunity because you never know if the guy sitting next to you is going to report you for changing the count to favor one candidate over another.

But most poll workers are volunteers, many of them elderly. While I agree with the effort to break up the corruption machine i think it would be a pretty tough sell to get people willing to travel outside their district. Expensive too when you think of the bureaucracy and even security required.

[bstanko6]

I think we should go back to how the founding fathers intended....

Land owners only vote.

You must own (have deed) to property. With ID to verify.

You wouldn’t have half the issues we have now.

“No house to show... no communism bro!” - Bstanko6

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by August

Actually no they didn't, the Repubs just filled existing judicial openings. The Dems want to add brand new justices to change the political makeup of the courts. Increase the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen and so forth.

Maybe next time, win the election?

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I think we should go back to how the founding fathers intended....

Land owners only vote.

You must own (have deed) to property. With ID to verify.

You wouldn’t have half the issues we have now.

“No house to show... no communism bro!” - Bstanko6

I could get behind this. Then again, the founders probably never expected corruption in government to get as bad as it is before citizens "fixed the glitch."

[August]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

Maybe next time, win the election?

Will you say the same in 4 years when the Repubs are back in control and they decide to up that number again from 15 to say 25?

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

I wonder where the Dems learned how to do that?
Did the last admin. install a bunch of judges?

Not the same thing at all. And you're trying to obfuscate the issue by implying it is. Last time a President tried to pack the Supreme Court, was Roosevelt in the 30's. And he failed for good reason.

[bstanko6]

If the Dems pack the courts... there will be no more 4 years to a vote...

They can literally throw the constitution out!

They will be in power forever.

That’s not good whether you are a Biden or Trump fan.

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I think we should go back to how the founding fathers intended....

Land owners only vote.

You must own (have deed) to property. With ID to verify.

You wouldn’t have half the issues we have now.

“No house to show... no communism bro!” - Bstanko6

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I could get behind this. Then again, the founders probably never expected corruption in government to get as bad as it is before citizens "fixed the glitch."

Congratulations, you are now officially recognised as anti-democratic.

And by that I mean, there is no discussion beyond this point.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I think we should go back to how the founding fathers intended....

Land owners only vote.

You must own (have deed) to property. With ID to verify.

You wouldn’t have half the issues we have now.

“No house to show... no communism bro!” - Bstanko6

So if someone lives in an apartment they rent or rent a home, they can't vote,LOL

[Sonicfire1981]

Originally Posted by eddie

So if someone lives in an apartment they rent or rent a home, they can't vote,LOL

but his russian landlord can. wonder what happens if someone owns two houses. This will finally give the citigroup the political influence they deserve

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by bstanko6

I think we should go back to how the founding fathers intended....

Land owners only vote.

You must own (have deed) to property. With ID to verify.

You wouldn’t have half the issues we have now.

“No house to show... no communism bro!” - Bstanko6

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I could get behind this. Then again, the founders probably never expected corruption in government to get as bad as it is before citizens "fixed the glitch."

So you want the “deep state” and their corporate henchmen to be able to control elections by deliberately crashing the economy and sending as many non-conspirators as possible into homelessness?

Or do you just think that homeless veterans don’t deserve to vote for the future of the country they served?

Anyway, pretty goddamn massive leap from “investigating voter fraud is part of a fair and free democracy” to “poor people don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else”.