Question for John McAdams

[Glenn V.]

John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would
think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia.

So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee
ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter
participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those
measures are pretty clear?

Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy?

Thanks,

Glenn V.

[John McAdams]

You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly
have plenty in Scandinavia.

Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it.

People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed.

Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as
evidence that the Democrats want to cheat.

Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia:

https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/

There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making
voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it
super-easy to cheat.

Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that
you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank
account and even collect welfare!

Note that in the article some election officials complained about
being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots.

Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they
should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020
that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to
any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence
in the system.

So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct
identity politics, eh?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:19:35 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2021 23:48:43 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:



> >John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would
> >think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia.
> >
> >So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee
> >ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter
> >participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those
> >measures are pretty clear?
> >
> >Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy?
> >
> You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly
> have plenty in Scandinavia.
>
> Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it.
>
> People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed.
>
> Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as
> evidence that the Democrats want to cheat.
>
> Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia:
>
> https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/
>
> There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making
> voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it
> super-easy to cheat.

What's this? I'm not talking about "super easy" or not. I'm talking about
free and fair elections where everyone who want to vote is, in fact, able
to vote. You either have this ambition or you don't. You know, just like
"Scandinavia" and the rest of Western Europe have organized their
ambitions of inclusion of **all voters** in their democracies.

If Europe can do this, the US certainly can. If the will is there, the
resources are there and the ambition to have a democracy of inclusion is
there, in the first place. You either do this and have this ambition or
you don't. Not a relative thing, this. And certainly no rocket science at
all.

>
> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that
> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank
> account and even collect welfare!
>
> Note that in the article some election officials complained about
> being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots.

So why wasn't the proper resources to deal with these highly expected high
numbers of absentee ballots allocated to the districts?

>
> Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they
> should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020
> that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to
> any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence
> in the system.

You don't think?? What evidence are you aware of that election officials
around the US are not? Election officials from both camps and courts with
judges appointed by both R's and D's? I'd be interested in hearing about
the evidence for this? You're an expert in distinguishing evidence from
fantasies and bs, as I recall.

>
> So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct
> identity politics, eh?

Yes, sure. Once you, perhaps, consider the fact that every single district
in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Georgia and Arizona where the GOP
wanted to throw out millions of votes are districts overwhelmingly
dominated by non-white voters. Huh?

/Glenn V.

[John McAdams]

Are people in Europe required to show ID when voting?

Are people allowed to mail in ballots?

Is "ballot harvesting" allowed? That is, can somebody go into a
nursing home, get all the residents to sign ballots for the favorite
candidates of the harvesters, and then submit those?

>
>If Europe can do this, the US certainly can. If the will is there, the
>resources are there and the ambition to have a democracy of inclusion is
>there, in the first place. You either do this and have this ambition or
>you don't. Not a relative thing, this. And certainly no rocket science at
>all.
>

What you call "democracy of inclusion," if taken to the extreme,
allows fraud. There needs to be reasonable safeguards.

>>
>> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that
>> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank
>> account and even collect welfare!
>>

No response?

>> Note that in the article some election officials complained about
>> being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots.
>
>So why wasn't the proper resources to deal with these highly expected high
>numbers of absentee ballots allocated to the districts?
>

The COVID thing his a few months before the election, and you can't
instantly ramp up.

>>
>> Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they
>> should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020
>> that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to
>> any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence
>> in the system.
>
>You don't think?? What evidence are you aware of that election officials
>around the US are not? Election officials from both camps and courts with
>judges appointed by both R's and D's? I'd be interested in hearing about
>the evidence for this? You're an expert in distinguishing evidence from
>fantasies and bs, as I recall.
>

You are just arguing that the election was not stolen.

I'm pointing out that irregularities allow people to believe that the
election was stolen. Or even just doubt the legitimacy of the system.

Again: elections should not merely *be* fair and honest, they should
*appear* to be fair and honest.

>>
>> So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct
>> identity politics, eh?
>
>Yes, sure. Once you, perhaps, consider the fact that every single district
>in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Georgia and Arizona where the GOP
>wanted to throw out millions of votes are districts overwhelmingly
>dominated by non-white voters. Huh?
>

Those districts had Democrat election officials who would be prone to
cheat to help the Democrats.

It's obvious you a knee deep in identity politics. I'm sure that
makes you fell great about yourself, but it's a way of avoiding real
issues.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

Correct. And frankly we *do* have free and fair elections. There are no
high barriers to casting a vote here. What's at issue is that one side
wants you to have virtually *no* standards to ensure you are a legitimate
US citizen with a right to vote. Here is a reality. A lot of illegal
aliens, and persons who are, or have been incarcerated lean Democratic.
The Democratic Party won't come out and say it, but they would like very
much to make it easier for such persons to cast a vote that will be
counted, even if is not a *legal* vote under the law. Since in US
history, they were the Party that originally most opposed the abolition of
Slavery, as well as the movement towards full civil rights, I cannot help
but note that their modern day stance as would be "champion" of such
things is somewhat ironic indeed.

As to whether they are any more likely to outright cheat, I will withhold
judgement. But the modern aggressive Progressive movement that is taking
over today's Democratic Party (vs. yesterday's more traditional Liberalism
that had room for *all* views) has shown a tremendous amount of
unscrupulousness towards views they don't agree with. (See Cancel Culture
or the attempt to remove John from his Professorship a few years back.)
Thus given little or no legal requirements to cast a *legal* vote, I would
feel very unsafe with their "ends justifies the means" 'my way or the
highway" "anyone who disagrees with me is evil and must be stopped"
mentality.

[Glenn V.]

BTG don't mix up things here. I -defended John publicly at various sites
on the Internet, back then. Period. I'll get back about the rest..It's
disappointing that you don't understand or know about this. John should
know.

As for the rest about John's posting, tomorrow.

[John McAdams]

>BTG don't mix up things here. I -defended John publicly at various sites
>on the Internet, back then. Period.

Thanks for doing that.

Note that I don't read BT George's post as attacking you personally.
He is pointing out a huge amount of intolerance on the left, and
saying fears of cheating are at least somewhat justified.

It's clear that at least some Democrat officials, in the 2020
election, simply ignored their state laws, and changed procedures IN
CONTRADICTION TO STATE LAWS, in order to advantage Biden.

Which is not to say that the votes they counted were not real votes.

>I'll get back about the rest..It's
>disappointing that you don't understand or know about this. John should
>know.
>

I don't think BT George is accusing you of attacking me personally.
You aren't.

We are just having a little debate. :-)

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

S0 you are against democracy.

>>>
>>> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that
>>> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank
>>> account and even collect welfare!
>>>
>
> No response?
>

Well, you judt told us that we are not allowed to discuss politics and
here you are doing the very same thing. Not setting a good exaxample.

False.

> It's obvious you a knee deep in identity politics. I'm sure that
> makes you fell great about yourself, but it's a way of avoiding real
> issues.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

How come you always claim voter fraud only to support Trump?
Why didn't you claim voter fraud when he won?
You really don't care about voter fraud, you just support Trump no
matter what. Do you realize that he lost?
Is he going to show up at CPAC or is he too afraid?
If he does show up will you kiss his ass?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/21/2021 7:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2021 23:48:43 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would
>> think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia.
>>
>> So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee
>> ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter
>> participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those
>> measures are pretty clear?
>>
>> Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy?
>>
>
> You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly
> have plenty in Scandinavia.
>
> Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it.
>
> People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed.
>
> Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as
> evidence that the Democrats want to cheat.
>
> Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia:
>
> https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/
>
> There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making
> voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it
> super-easy to cheat.
>
> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that
> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank
> account and even collect welfare!
>

Silly. I haven't had to show my ID in years.
I didn't renew my driver's licence because I junked my car.

[BT George]

Glenn, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly not a personal attack, nor
was I accusing you of mixing things up. (Though not living here and
seeing things through the eyes of the decidedly Left leaning European
press I could not be sure you fully understand some of the excesses of the
radical Progressive movement on furthering their own agenda at almost an
cost) The latter point is to say, that more standards for counting Legal
vote need to exist than many on the Radical Left here would like. Else, I
certainly cannot put it past them to seek to count *all* voters.
...Legal or not.

[BT George]

AGREED! I have tremendous respect for Glenn, even when we occasionally
don't agree, as I know you do too.


> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

Good. So am I.

So far, in 2021, we now have 250 bills introduced by the GOP around the US. All of them, in one way are another restricting voting.

Now then. What do you say John, you think this is due to a fair minded,
inclusive approach - a couple of months after they lost the senate and the
presidency? Just a little balancing between super-easy and easy?

Come on, John. I know that you are a very intelligent guy, so please be
honest about this.

Just one example, picked up today:

"On Tuesday, Georgia’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike
Dugan introduced a bill repealing no-excuse absentee voting, which 1.3
million Georgians used in 2020, including 450,000 Republicans. Under his
proposal, only a small subset of voters, such as those who are out of
town, disabled, or over 65 (a demographic that leans strongly Republican),
will be eligible to vote by mail. The small percentage of Georgians who
can still cast ballots by mail will have to get a witness signature on
their ballot and attach a copy of photo identification, which requires
access to a copier or printer. The new law would make Georgia one of the
most restrictive states in the country for mail voting."

All of this, because the GOP are to understood as inclusive, fighting for
the rights of all legal voters to have the opportunity to vote?

[Glenn V.]

It's mutual, Brock. As you know, I hold you in high regard, always! But,
you are on the wrong side of this issue, it seems to me.

BTW, I'm not getting informed by "left leaning European press" about this.
Probably 98% is US based, right and left-leaning press.

/Glenn

[John McAdams]

Glenn,

Did you answer my questions below?

I didn't see any answers.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 19:34:19 -0600, John McAdams
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:

>>
>>What's this? I'm not talking about "super easy" or not. I'm talking about
>>free and fair elections where everyone who want to vote is, in fact, able
>>to vote. You either have this ambition or you don't. You know, just like
>>"Scandinavia" and the rest of Western Europe have organized their
>>ambitions of inclusion of **all voters** in their democracies.
>
>Are people in Europe required to show ID when voting?
>

Apparently, yes:

https://www.nccivitas.org/civitas-review/fact-check-international-voter-id-laws/

>Are people allowed to mail in ballots?
>

Apparently Sweden is one country that does not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JQMRLVDQWBFW3AM36HLOMEZ6M4.png&w=767

>Is "ballot harvesting" allowed? That is, can somebody go into a
>nursing home, get all the residents to sign ballots for the favorite
>candidates of the harvesters, and then submit those?

I can't find anything on this.

Can you answer the questions?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

According to the WASHINGTON POST, Sweden doesn't allow mail-in voting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JQMRLVDQWBFW3AM36HLOMEZ6M4.png&w=767

>The small percentage of Georgians who
>can still cast ballots by mail will have to get a witness signature on
>their ballot and attach a copy of photo identification, which requires
>access to a copier or printer. The new law would make Georgia one of the
>most restrictive states in the country for mail voting."
>

But Sweden doesn't allow mail-in voting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JQMRLVDQWBFW3AM36HLOMEZ6M4.png&w=767

>All of this, because the GOP are to understood as inclusive, fighting for
>the rights of all legal voters to have the opportunity to vote?

You are using "inclusive" as a mantra.

Clear fair elections require some safeguards.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

You want to talk about Sweden now? How come? Attack is best defense? Or
that I'm a hypocrite about this?

Very transparent, John, and not particularly impressive. Considering your
position on this subject, you're making a mistake if you think we're just
as bad as the US on this one. It doesn't give me much pleasure to tell you
that the US are way behind.

Let me assure you, every legally qualified person in Sweden who wants to
vote, can do so. You don't seriously believe that for example people in
nursing homes, hospitals or those who for whatever reason can't make it to
a voting facility in person are excluded from voting, do you?

Once you comment on my postings, for example about the Georgia
restrictions that are now being proposed to restrict voting (as a result
of more D's voting by mail in 2020 than expected and more D's than R's
which has never happened before?), or why in a little over month this
year, 250 bills to restrict voting are now in the pipeline in the US, then
I will be happy to explain why we indeed have the ambition to let everyone
vote and how we, in fact, live up to this ambition.

[BT George]

Glenn. Of course, I am not surprised what you would get from the
left-leaning US press, but would like to know what you would cite from
right leaning sources, or even demonstrably centrist sources---if any
still exist here anymore. (...Of course, I mean right, left, or centrist
in a US vs. Western European context.)

Also, another thing I haven't mentioned. In theory, I am all for making
voting as easy a reasonably possible, but I *do* think one should have
enough commitment to go through an in person process except in truly
necessary cases. (Out of the country, in the hospital or nursing home,
but conscious and of sound mind, etc.) Here is a fairly well know fact.
A significant part of the Democratic Party's constituency is made up very
young and healthy people. Alas---based on the putrid number of them that
ever show up at a voting poll---many of these same persons are apparently
too busy getting ready for their next date, party, exam or fill-in-blank,
to invest the 45 minutes - 1.5 hours it takes most persons here to vote in
person. But send them a ballot that they can easily email or mail in and
they will take the time because it exerts no real crimp on their schedule.

I believe it was more towards *that* end, that the Democratic Party was so
passionate about greatly expand absentee voting, and towards that end, the
pandemic came in mighty handy as an excuse. And YES the opposite is also
true. The Republican Party's is averse it (the issue of cheating aside)
because it tends to hurt them when more young people cast votes.
However, while easier mail in voting may persuade a broader swath of
Americans to cast a vote, to the extent it enables the more lazy among
among us (read not deeply committed, or particularly well informed, and
because many lack families or children, not having as much at stake) to
play a more dramatic role I would not automatically consider that a good
thing. ...Sorry for the long final sentence. Probably tried to cram too
many words into one line.

[John Corbett]

We keep hearing Democrats whine about Republicans wanting to
disenfranchise voters with their calls for election safeguards. They
ignore the fact that a fraudulent vote is another form of
disenfranchisement because it cancels out the vote of a legitimate voter.
It has become ridiculously easy to vote in this country. Anyone who can't
take the minimal steps required to cast their vote has no one to blame but
themselves.

[Glenn V.]

Thanks, Brock.

I'll probably not be able to answer you posting until Monday, but I will.

[x]

>>> "On Tuesday, Georgia???s Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike

You're making an issue out of any restrictions placed on
mail-in balloting in the US. And --I presume-- you live
in a country that bans the practice wholesale. But you say
that your satisfied with the result of that ban ("every

legally qualified person in Sweden who wants to vote,

can do so").

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of "hypocrite," no
matter how much you want to take issue with it.

You understand that you've effectively admitted that
absentee- and other forms of main-in-balloting are not
necessary for a free, fair, and inclusive election (again,
think about the upshot of "every legally qualified person
in Sweden who wants to vote, can do so" in a country that
bans mail-in balloting).

The problems with mail-in balloting in the US, particularly
with the practice known as "ballot harvesting" are well
enough known of you care to look, though it's rarely talked
about publicly. One of the better explorations of the
practice was laid down in the Dallas Observer in the late
1990s by Laura Miller. It would be a good thing on many
levels if the laws that allow harvesting were amended to
shut it down. And it wouldn't lead to anyone being
disenfranchised, save for some unhappy political machine
operatives.

[John McAdams]

On 27 Feb 2021 01:29:43 -0000, x <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/26/2021 4:10 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 4:22:37 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb 2021 02:13:28 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 12:27:28 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Feb 2021 10:54:02 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's clear that at least some Democrat officials, in the 2020
>>>>> election, simply ignored their state laws, and changed procedures IN
>>>>> CONTRADICTION TO STATE LAWS, in order to advantage Biden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not to say that the votes they counted were not real votes.
>>>>>> I'll get back about the rest..It's
>>>>>> disappointing that you don't understand or know about this. John should
>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think BT George is accusing you of attacking me personally.
>>>>> You aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are just having a little debate. :-)
>>>>>

>> You want to talk about Sweden now? How come? Attack is best defense? Or
>> that I'm a hypocrite about this?
>>

You fuss and fume about Republicans not wanting mail-in voting.

And you claim elections are great in Sweden

And you don't have mail-in voting!

>> Very transparent, John, and not particularly impressive. Considering your
>> position on this subject, you're making a mistake if you think we're just
>> as bad as the US on this one. It doesn't give me much pleasure to tell you
>> that the US are way behind.
>>

And you evidence is?

>> Let me assure you, every legally qualified person in Sweden who wants to
>> vote, can do so. You don't seriously believe that for example people in
>> nursing homes, hospitals or those who for whatever reason can't make it to
>> a voting facility in person are excluded from voting, do you?
>>

They aren't.

Good points, "X."

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>

I was delighted to have Glenn's essay about Judyth Baker on my site.

He leveraged his residence in Sweden to do some excellent research
that otherwise would not have been done.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viklund.htm

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

Right, since you asked about Sweden, I'll give you a few basic facts.

- Voter turnout, 2018 general election, 87,2 % of all eligible voters
which is 82% of the entire voting age population. (as comparison, US
numbers are 86,8 / 55,7 (2016).

- General elections always takes place on a Sunday, where most are off
work.

- Eligible voters are automatically registered voters.

- You can vote by mail when you are abroad, from anywhere in the world.

- You can vote at any of a huge number of polling stations, such as
schools, libraries, post offices, municipal and other facilities,
starting three weeks prior to election day.

- A national ID card, a drivers license or a passport is required as
identification.

- You cannot vote by mail, no need for this since those who, for any
reason, can't vote in person are still able to vote.

- You can vote by using a courier (of your choice) who will bring the vote
to election officials at polling stations.

- If you have no courier, officially appointed local election couriers (2)
will visit your home, get your vote and deliver it to election officials
in your district.

- Of course, you can go to a nearby official polling station before or on
election day to vote, in person.

And needless to say, the procedures, controls and paper work regulating
all those options are strictly implemented and followed up in detail in
order to avoid voting fraud.

Time for you and the others now to answer the questions I raised above.

[Bud]

I would like to se us get more restrictive like this here in America.

> - You cannot vote by mail, no need for this since those who, for any
> reason, can't vote in person are still able to vote.

I would like to se us get more restrictive like this here in America.

[Glenn V.]

But of course you. Thanks for confirming my reasoning here. Great.

[John McAdams]

You have been answered. It's just that some of the answers have been
an embarrassment -- like mail in voting.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 2 Mar 2021 00:54:45 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:01:42 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >AGREED! I have tremendous respect for Glenn, even when we occasionally
>> >don't agree, as I know you do too.
>> >
>> >
>> I was delighted to have Glenn's essay about Judyth Baker on my site.
>>
>> He leveraged his residence in Sweden to do some excellent research
>> that otherwise would not have been done.
>>
>> https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viklund.htm
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>Right, since you asked about Sweden, I'll give you a few basic facts.
>
>- Voter turnout, 2018 general election, 87,2 % of all eligible voters
> which is 82% of the entire voting age population. (as comparison, US
> numbers are 86,8 / 55,7 (2016).
>

So what?

>- General elections always takes place on a Sunday, where most are off
> work.
>

But poll hours in the US usually start early, and end late. In
Wisconsin polls close in 8:00 p.m.

>- Eligible voters are automatically registered voters.
>

Which probably means you have a fair number of voters who should *not*
be registered in a particular jurisdiction, since they have moved or
such.

>- You can vote by mail when you are abroad, from anywhere in the world.
>

But not from Sweden!

Democrats in the US want unlimited mail-in voting. Sweden does not
allow that.

>- You can vote at any of a huge number of polling stations, such as
> schools, libraries, post offices, municipal and other facilities,
> starting three weeks prior to election day.
>

In the US, if there is some reason you could not be at the polls on
election day, you can vote absentee.

>- A national ID card, a drivers license or a passport is required as
> identification.
>

Oh! Something else that Democrats *don't like.*

Simply requiring ID to vote has been highly controversial here.

We should follow Sweden's example. :-)

>- You cannot vote by mail, no need for this since those who, for any
> reason, can't vote in person are still able to vote.
>

Same here. Vote absentee.

>- You can vote by using a courier (of your choice) who will bring the vote
> to election officials at polling stations.
>

Huge possibilities of fraud here, unless you have robust checks in
place.

>- If you have no courier, officially appointed local election couriers (2)
> will visit your home, get your vote and deliver it to election officials
> in your district.
>

So no ballot harvesting!

You insist on "officially appointed."

>- Of course, you can go to a nearby official polling station before or on
> election day to vote, in person.
>

You can vote absentee in the US, if you have a reason.

And lots of jurisdictions allow "early voting," which is just like the
situation you describe in Sweden.

>And needless to say, the procedures, controls and paper work regulating
>all those options are strictly implemented and followed up in detail in
>order to avoid voting fraud.
>

Sound good. Who resists doing this in the US?

Not the Republicans.

>Time for you and the others now to answer the questions I raised above.

Done.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

You seem to be complaining that Georgia wants to implement the sort of
things that Sweden already has in place.

Here in Pennsylvania votes were counted whether the signatures matched
or not. Votes were counted even if the forms weren`t filled out (sometimes
even the address was left out). In the past these would have been thrown
out, now they are counted because the rules were changed in a very
partisan manner. When you have millions of people who have no confidence
in the process, you need to tighten things up. We need more stringent
rules to stop Democrats from stealing elections, it is really just that
simple.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, YOU objected to Trump voting by mail? I must have missed that message
- can you repost it?

So you like to discriminate gainst disabled peolple. What if someone is
home bound and can't get to the polling place? You say he has no right to
vote? Let me give you an example. I am disabled. I can not walk a mile. I
used to vote at the buulding next door which is connected by a bridge.
When rhe virus hit they shut down the building and blococked off the
bridge, and changed the voting place to a nearby school about a mile
away. Too far for me to walk and too dangerous because that street is
where soeone was run over and killed. So you would object to my voting by
mail. Because you don't believe in Democracy. You must be so PROUD of your
BOIS.


> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/2/2021 8:53 AM, John McAdams wrote:

> On 2 Mar 2021 00:54:45 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:01:42 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> AGREED! I have tremendous respect for Glenn, even when we occasionally
>>>> don't agree, as I know you do too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was delighted to have Glenn's essay about Judyth Baker on my site.
>>>
>>> He leveraged his residence in Sweden to do some excellent research
>>> that otherwise would not have been done.
>>>
>>> https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viklund.htm
>>>
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> Right, since you asked about Sweden, I'll give you a few basic facts.
>>
>> - Voter turnout, 2018 general election, 87,2 % of all eligible voters
>> which is 82% of the entire voting age population. (as comparison, US
>> numbers are 86,8 / 55,7 (2016).
>>
>
> So what?
>
>> - General elections always takes place on a Sunday, where most are off
>> work.
>>
>
> But poll hours in the US usually start early, and end late. In
> Wisconsin polls close in 8:00 p.m.

Do you think they count the votes while the voting is still going on?

>
>> - Eligible voters are automatically registered voters.
>>
>
> Which probably means you have a fair number of voters who should *not*
> be registered in a particular jurisdiction, since they have moved or
> such.
>
>
>> - You can vote by mail when you are abroad, from anywhere in the world.
>>

What about from space?

>
> But not from Sweden!
>
> Democrats in the US want unlimited mail-in voting. Sweden does not
> allow that.

So, what would YOU do, just forbid ALL voting?

[BT George]

Glenn,

I would say they have you on the issue of requiring a voter ID in Sweden,
but not here, and on the lack of mail in voting in Sweden proper. I think
you might do well my friend acknowledging we on the Right have some valid
concerns about these things. Now if you want to compare histories and
make a case that what happened back in the 60's and before shows a need
for more elaborate measures to ensure racial fairness, I would be open to
hearing a defensible argument for the modern day. But IMHO, there is now
in 2021 simply no honest excuse to not require a national ID before
voting, or limiting mail in voting within the country to measure such as I
mentioned in a prior post. And as I also said, if a disproportionate
share of one's electorate has "better things to do" than spend the modest
time I mentioned to go cast a ballot, then I say they *ought* to
disenfranchise themselves.

Brock

[x]

In the US, the date for national elections is the first
Tuesday in November, as set in the Constitution. However,
most jurisdictions allow early voting for a couple of
weeks before this day.

> - Eligible voters are automatically registered voters.

The only time I've ever had to register is when I've
changed address.

> - You can vote by mail when you are abroad, from anywhere in the world.

Ditto in the US.

> - You can vote at any of a huge number of polling stations, such as
> schools, libraries, post offices, municipal and other facilities,
> starting three weeks prior to election day.

Pretty much the same here. I used to have to go to the
particular polling place assigned for our precinct. That
changed a couple of election cycles ago. Now, I can go
to any polling place in the county and vote.

> - A national ID card, a drivers license or a passport is required as
> identification.

This practice is considered to be "voter suppression"
among the bien-pensant. It's increasingly become a common
requirement, at least in states with a Republican majority
in the statehouse, moves which were roundly denounced as a
veritable return to Jim Crow.

It didn't used to be this way. Not all that long ago, all
you needed to show was a voter registration card. This was
an index card sized piece of heavy paper that had your name
and address, but nothing more.

By way of comparison, in Mexico, you have to have a dedicated
voter ID in order to cast a ballot. This ID not only has your
photo and address, it also carries your fingerprint.

> - You cannot vote by mail, no need for this since those who, for any
> reason, can't vote in person are still able to vote.

So here's one difference. You can vote by mail in the US.
The question is, are there proper safeguards against
fraud?

> - You can vote by using a courier (of your choice) who will bring the vote
> to election officials at polling stations.
>
> - If you have no courier, officially appointed local election couriers (2)
> will visit your home, get your vote and deliver it to election officials
> in your district.

What constitutes a "courier" in Sweden? Could that be anyone? Or is there
some legal requirements and limitations as to who can take on that role?

In this US, this is generally where all the ballot
harvesting happens.

> - Of course, you can go to a nearby official polling station before or on
> election day to vote, in person.

Same is true here.

> And needless to say, the procedures, controls and paper work regulating
> all those options are strictly implemented and followed up in detail in
> order to avoid voting fraud.

Those exist in the US as well. Or so they say. How it works
out in reality is a little bit different.

> Time for you and the others now to answer the questions I raised above.

There are no terrible "high barriers" here. That's just a bunch of
whargarrbl spewed by certain groups who've benefitted from the loose
standards of the status quo. And stand to lose if those standards are
tightened.

The various proposed changes to voting laws that create such a fuss don't
seem to be liable to create any onerous new barriers. If anything, these
would seem to bring US election laws more in line with international
norms.

BTW, this came across my news feed last week:

https://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/four-people-including-justice-of
the-peace-arrested-on-150-counts-of-voter-fraud

[John Corbett]

People seem to forget that the Constitution stipulates quite clearly that
each state's electors are to be chosen in a manner determined by the state
legislatures. It does not give the courts authority to overrule the
decisions made by the legislatures, but that was certainly done in
Pennsylvania. The state law said that absentee ballots must be RECEIVED no
later than election day yet the courts ruled that rule should be waived
and the ballots accepted up to three days after the election. Since the
mail in ballots went overwhelmingly for Biden, this was very much to his
advantage, an advantage he was not entitled to by law. Did that make the
difference in Pennsylvania? Who knows and even if it did, Trump would had
to flip two other big states as well, but it is just one example of the
irregularities that are the reason so many people think the election was
stolen.

One thing I think is pretty clear. Without a sizeable mail-in vote, Trump
would have easily won a second term. He won the same day vote. Does that
mean there was enough fraudulent mail in voting to swing the election?
Probably not, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be concern for the
integrity of future elections. I would prefer to see us go back to the
days where people who wanted to vote absentee had to request such a ballot
rather than have these ballots sent out in mass. There's just too much
opportunity for fraudulent ballot harvesting. Had Dick Daley had mail in
balloting available to his Chicago machine, I doubt any Republican could
have ever won a statewide race in Illinois.

[Bud]

Link doesn`t work for me, I`ll attempt a fix...

https://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/four-people-including-justice-of-the-peace-arrested-on-150-counts-of-voter-fraud

[Glenn V.]

“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say,
the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice
Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to
Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's
restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote
they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us,
it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing
an election 51 to 50.”

Well, Brock. This is a quote from the SC hearings today. Unlike what I see
here, a republican lawyer speaking it out loud. "A competitive
disadvantage". "A zero-sum game". There we have it.

So, am I surprised that no one here see any problems with bills introduced
to restrict voting in the US? Not one bit, frankly. All republicans, all
on home turf when supporting this. All white men, too?

So let's see. Once again, Georgia. Five million votes. Three recounts.
Resulting in appr. -900 votes for Biden, in total. Completely in line with
everything acceptable as an alection with no significant problems of voter
fraud. No irregularities. As confirmed by republican election officials in
this state.

Still, bill after bill is now being introduced in Georgia with one single
purpose; to reduce voter participation. Has nothing to do with voter fraud
whatsoever. John want me “learn about identity politics”.
But does he also recognize that those bills in Georgia are, by design,
targeting minorities; black voters?

Stacey Abrams ten year long efforts – among other things - to get
people of minorities to vote, paid off. And now the republicans in Georgia
have realized they are at risk of losing more elections moving forward to
the midterms, if nothing is done. And yes Brock, I do very much understand
how significant what happened in Georgia really is. This was a true earth
quake in American politics, losing to the state to Biden and losing the
two senate seats. And that's exactly why it's a very good example to
understand what the republicans are now up to. Hundreds and hundreds of
bills all over the US with one thing in common, to restrict voting. And
this, my friend, is a fact.

So Brock. I brought Georgia up early in this thread. No comments, so far.
Which speaks volumes. I understand that most here would much more like to
discuss elections in Sweden than defending the indefensible, of which
these v oter restriction proposals in Georgia are a good example, a very
good example.

And of course, the lawyer in the Supreme Court today, should we perhaps
assume he's out of business with the republicans, shortly?

[John McAdams]

On 3 Mar 2021 05:12:05 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 1:01:59 AM UTC+1, x wrote:
>> On 3/1/2021 6:54 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:01:42 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>>

You mean they don't live in the precinct where they vote?

Do you even understand that voting precincts are *geographic?*

If you move, you have to register in the new place.

Otherwise people anywhere could vote in an district they wanted. They
could swamp the locals with their votes.

>“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to
>Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's
>restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote
>they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us,
>it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing
>an election 51 to 50.”
>
>Well, Brock. This is a quote from the SC hearings today. Unlike what I see
>here, a republican lawyer speaking it out loud. "A competitive
>disadvantage". "A zero-sum game". There we have it.

Are you really this dense?

It's an *unfair* competitive disadvantage.

People have a right to litigate unfair voting rules. And *of course*
the party benefiting from the unfairness isn't going to litigate, or
fix it without a court order.

>
>So, am I surprised that no one here see any problems with bills introduced
>to restrict voting in the US? Not one bit, frankly. All republicans, all
>on home turf when supporting this. All white men, too?
>

That's racist and sexist.

You really are neck deep in identity politics.

>So let's see. Once again, Georgia. Five million votes. Three recounts.
>Resulting in appr. -900 votes for Biden, in total. Completely in line with
>everything acceptable as an alection with no significant problems of voter
>fraud. No irregularities. As confirmed by republican election officials in
>this state.
>
>Still, bill after bill is now being introduced in Georgia with one single
>purpose; to reduce voter participation. Has nothing to do with voter fraud
>whatsoever. John want me “learn about identity politics”.
>But does he also recognize that those bills in Georgia are, by design,
>targeting minorities; black voters?
>

Don't you understand that any bill that seeks election security is
going to be *claimed* to target minority voters?

Are "minority voters" so lazy and stupid they can't abide by fair
rules?

If you believe that, you are racist against blacks, in addition to
being racist toward white males.

>Stacey Abrams ten year long efforts – among other things - to get
>people of minorities to vote, paid off. And now the republicans in Georgia
>have realized they are at risk of losing more elections moving forward to
>the midterms, if nothing is done. And yes Brock, I do very much understand
>how significant what happened in Georgia really is. This was a true earth
>quake in American politics, losing to the state to Biden and losing the
>two senate seats. And that's exactly why it's a very good example to
>understand what the republicans are now up to. Hundreds and hundreds of
>bills all over the US with one thing in common, to restrict voting. And
>this, my friend, is a fact.
>

You mean bills to require voter ID, such as Sweden has?

And bills to outlaw mail-in voting, which is illegal in Sweden?

>So Brock. I brought Georgia up early in this thread. No comments, so far.

That is simply untrue.

>Which speaks volumes. I understand that most here would much more like to
>discuss elections in Sweden than defending the indefensible, of which
>these v oter restriction proposals in Georgia are a good example, a very
>good example.
>

Discussing Sweden shows your double standard.

>And of course, the lawyer in the Supreme Court today, should we perhaps
>assume he's out of business with the republicans, shortly?

Huh?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

Glenn. Why are you addressing this to me at all? Don't you direct this
to John? The last comments I had on this particular thread was February
24th and doesn't bring up Georgia in particular, but the Democrats desire
to have virtually *no* standards to cast a "legal" vote.

If you want to address something to me, please go back and direct it
towards anything *I* actually said. ...One thing you can be sure. If *I*
don't comment on something I either deemed it irrelevant or didn't notice
it Because I "Sashay(tm)" to anyone approximately *zero* times. Because
if I am clearly wrong I try to always admit it.

[Glenn V.]

John,

I'd expected more from you. Much more. Your patronizing debate style
doesn't do you any favors, in my opinion. The way you just simply attack,
on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably
juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into
anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now.

However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative
reality denier. Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far
as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this
thread with his head held high.

The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible
from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think
twice about their policies in certain areas, instead of trying desperately
to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US
people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP
choose their way.

That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and
the conservative movement in the US.

/Glenn

[John Corbett]

By "depending on excluding as many as possible from voting," do you mean
fraudulent voters. Why do liberals object to reasonable safeguards being
put into place to make sure only eligible voters are able to cast ballots?
How does that exclude anybody from casting a vote? Voting is very easy to
do in our country. You show up at the polls, show identification to prove
you are the person who is on the voter registration, and you are allowed
to vote. If you are unable to show up to the polls on election day for
whatever reason, you can request an absentee ballot which you then send in
to the board of elections. It couldn't be easier. Eliminating those
safeguards makes it much easier for fraudulent votes to be cast and every
fraudulent vote cast disenfranchises a legitimate voter because it cancels
out their vote.

[John McAdams]

On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:15:07 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 3 Mar 2021 05:12:05 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 1:01:59 AM UTC+1, x wrote:
>> >> On 3/1/2021 6:54 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:01:42 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> >> On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >
>> >

>John,
>
>I'd expected more from you. Much more. Your patronizing debate style
>doesn't do you any favors, in my opinion.

Do you understand the irony of that comment, coming in a patronizing
post by you?

>The way you just simply attack,
>on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably
>juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into
>anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now.
>

You are neck deep in identity politics, playing the race card
constantly.

>However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative
>reality denier.

Have you been called an ultra leftist reality denier?

>Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far
>as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this
>thread with his head held high.
>

The term "voter suppression" begs the question. You should know more
logic than that.

>The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible
>from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think
>twice about their policies in certain areas,

Like what?

>instead of trying desperately
>to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US
>people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP
>choose their way.
>

OIC. "People of color" are going to take over, and consign the GOP to
oblivion.

In the first place, the youngest cohort of white voters went for Trump
in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/5

In the second place, about 30% of Latino voters went from Trump, and
the number will increase as Latinos become more assimilated.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/7

Further, the black population is growing slowly, and black fertility
is decreasing.

>That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and
>the conservative movement in the US.
>

What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed
arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't
like.

I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump.

And your time discussing voting in the US has been embarrassing, since
you are attacking US Republicans for:

1.) wanting to ban mail-in voting.
2.) wanting voter ID
3.) wanting to ban ballot harvesting

All of which would make US elections more like Sweden!

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

Not at all, but you don't understand - behind all of those ridiculous
attachments you have to arguments you don't like. That's not the man I
read, and liked based on his arguments 15 years ago about the JFK
assassination. Back then you always had valid arguments.

> >The way you just simply attack,
> >on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably
> >juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into
> >anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now.
> >
> You are neck deep in identity politics, playing the race card
> constantly.
> >However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative
> >reality denier.
> Have you been called an ultra leftist reality denier?

Never. Even from my political opponents, and as much of a surprise as it
may be to you, not even about this crap you suggested where I have my
head.

> >Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far
> >as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this
> >thread with his head held high.
> >
> The term "voter suppression" begs the question. You should know more
> logic than that.

I do - quit questioning my knowledge. You on the other hand, should not
even question others about this, but instead of dodging questions, answer
them.

> >The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible
> >from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think
> >twice about their policies in certain areas,
> Like what?

Ask them!

> >instead of trying desperately
> >to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US
> >people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP
> >choose their way.
> >
> OIC. "People of color" are going to take over, and consign the GOP to
> oblivion.

No, the *minorities* (the ones you don't seem to believe exists) that the
GOP refuses to acknowledge - will destroy the GOP. if they continue on
this path.

>
> In the first place, the youngest cohort of white voters went for Trump
> in 2020.

Yes, exactly. And what other cohorts that demographics are pointing to as
the growing ones is that minorities, women did not.

>
> https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/5
>
> In the second place, about 30% of Latino voters went from Trump, and

> the number will increase as Latinos become more assimilated. `

Yes. Because they were scared shit about the "socialism" crap. That's
why. To quote your debate style -*Do you understand *why?

>
> https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/7
>
> Further, the black population is growing slowly, and black fertility
> is decreasing.

The ^*migration* statistics, and that of *all minorites* says the opposite.

> >That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and
> >the conservative movement in the US.
> >
> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed
> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't
> like.

What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter
anything on this subject. Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave
out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not
understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one
percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts? Trump doesn't give a s**t
about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars
to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else.

Read up, John, You are out of touch.

My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of
history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't
about votes, is it?

>
> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump.

Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do
this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have
thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't
speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected
you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people
left and right, like you do.

We're friends on FB, at your request. You know nothing about me, my
education, my experiences or anything else. You should learn how to treat
people who are not professors, and who are not a**holes.

So let me give you a taste, John. I'm an economist by profession, having
studied economics, political science and business administration for
almost five years All the years I've spent in both government and private
sector positions has been a fruitful experience, I don't degrade people
the way you do, constantly.

Simply speaking, I don't take this patronizing shit from you, shape up!

I demand respect from you, and the way you are dealing with me in this
thread, is not that of respect.

>
> And your time discussing voting in the US has been embarrassing, since
> you are attacking US Republicans for:
>
> 1.) wanting to ban mail-in voting.
> 2.) wanting voter ID
> 3.) wanting to ban ballot harvesting

They do. Look simply at the H.R.1 (I think the number is) which is going
through congress as we speak. Period.

>
> All of which would make US elections more like Sweden!

Exactly. And we have no voter irregularities, no voter fraud. Again -
PERIOD. "Do you understand" - to quote yourself? Spend the resources to
make this happen, is the answer you don't want do hear - or *understand*?

"If it ain't a problem, don't fix it". Remember?

- Make supporting voter lines in Georgia with food illegal, and make
voting polls fewer and less frequent?

Wake up, John. Your dinosaur views are gone help no one. Not you, not the
GOP and not real conservatives. Those real conservatives are going to
learn from what you are defending. They will have to.

>
> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

I don't. #If it ain't broken, dont fix it" remember? Nothing has come out
of this election that supports that. The GOP was fine with all of it,
untill they lost the election?

> How does that exclude anybody from casting a vote? Voting is very easy to
> do in our country. You show up at the polls, show identification to prove
> you are the person who is on the voter registration, and you are allowed
> to vote. If you are unable to show up to the polls on election day for
> whatever reason, you can request an absentee ballot which you then send in
> to the board of elections. It couldn't be easier.

I've explained how it's done here. You can do the same. Not simply take
measures that will, positively, make things harder for non gop districts.
Spend the resources and do it the right way, not rocket science.

Eliminating those
> safeguards makes it much easier for fraudulent votes to be cast and every
> fraudulent vote cast disenfranchises a legitimate voter because it cancels
> out their vote.

Make sure it doesn't, spend the required resources.

[John Corbett]

> I've explained how it's done here. You can do the same. Not simply takey

> measures that will, positively, make things harder for non gop districts.

Explain how any of these measures makes it harder to vote in non-GOP

districts.

> Spend the resources and do it the right way, not rocket science.
> Eliminating those
> > safeguards makes it much easier for fraudulent votes to be cast and every
> > fraudulent vote cast disenfranchises a legitimate voter because it cancels
> > out their vote.
> Make sure it doesn't, spend the required resources.

Your suggestion is a little sketchy on the details. Just throwing money
at a problem doesn't fix it.

[John McAdams]

On 11 Mar 2021 04:15:51 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:31 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:15:07 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 3 Mar 2021 05:12:05 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >John,
>> >
>> >I'd expected more from you. Much more. Your patronizing debate style
>> >doesn't do you any favors, in my opinion.
>
>> Do you understand the irony of that comment, coming in a patronizing
>> post by you?
>
>Not at all, but you don't understand - behind all of those ridiculous
>attachments you have to arguments you don't like. That's not the man I
>read, and liked based on his arguments 15 years ago about the JFK
>assassination. Back then you always had valid arguments.
>

I could say the same thing about you.

>> >The way you just simply attack,
>> >on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably
>> >juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into
>> >anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now.
>> >
>> You are neck deep in identity politics, playing the race card
>> constantly.
>> >However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative
>> >reality denier.
>> Have you been called an ultra leftist reality denier?
>
>Never. Even from my political opponents, and as much of a surprise as it
>may be to you, not even about this crap you suggested where I have my
>head.
>

That was a rhetorical question.

But maybe I should call you an ultra-leftist reality denier.

Since you have so much education (see below) you know that the proper
strategy in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is tit for tat.

>> >Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far
>> >as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this
>> >thread with his head held high.
>> >
>> The term "voter suppression" begs the question. You should know more
>> logic than that.
>
>I do - quit questioning my knowledge.

The why did you beg the question?

>You on the other hand, should not
>even question others about this, but instead of dodging questions, answer
>them.
>

I do, but you just don't like the answers.

>> >The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible
>> >from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think
>> >twice about their policies in certain areas,
>> Like what?
>
>Ask them!
>

You mean like defunding the police? A majority of blacks oppose that:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

You white leftists don't represent the groups you claim to represent.

>> >instead of trying desperately
>> >to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US
>> >people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP
>> >choose their way.
>> >
>> OIC. "People of color" are going to take over, and consign the GOP to
>> oblivion.
>
>No, the *minorities* (the ones you don't seem to believe exists) that the
>GOP refuses to acknowledge - will destroy the GOP. if they continue on
>this path.

"Minorities" and "people of color" mean the same thing.

And you have some issues like that in Sweden.

>
>>
>> In the first place, the youngest cohort of white voters went for Trump
>> in 2020.
>
>Yes, exactly. And what other cohorts that demographics are pointing to as
>the growing ones is that minorities, women did not.
>

White women did:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/0

>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/5
>>
>> In the second place, about 30% of Latino voters went from Trump, and
>> the number will increase as Latinos become more assimilated. `
>
>Yes. Because they were scared shit about the "socialism" crap. That's
>why. To quote your debate style -*Do you understand *why?

OIC. Latino voters are stupid, in your view.

Amazing how quickly you leftists throw you favored victim groups under
the bus when they don't act as you want.

>
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/7
>>
>> Further, the black population is growing slowly, and black fertility
>> is decreasing.
>
>The ^*migration* statistics, and that of *all minorites* says the opposite.
>

Which is why Democrats are big on illegal immigration.

But again, Latinos are likely to move to the center as they
assimilate.

>> >That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and
>> >the conservative movement in the US.
>> >
>> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed
>> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't
>> like.
>
>What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter
>anything on this subject.

You are embarrassing yourself by just berating me, and not making
arguments.

>Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave
>out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not
>understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one
>percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts? Trump doesn't give a s**t
>about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars
>to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else.
>

You hate Trump because his election was a kick in the teeth to
elitists with whom you identify.

The populist sentiment that elected him remains, and will have its
day, beginning in 2022.

>Read up, John, You are out of touch.
>

Again, you just berate me, rather than making an argument.

That's ad hominem. Do you know what that means?

>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of
>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't
>about votes, is it?
>

That's an argumentum ad baculum.

>>
>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump.
>
>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do
>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have
>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't
>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected
>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people
>left and right, like you do.
>

Do you condone or object to Facebook and Twitter banning Trump?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

>We're friends on FB, at your request. You know nothing about me, my
>education, my experiences or anything else. You should learn how to treat
>people who are not professors, and who are not a**holes.
>

More ad hominem.

>So let me give you a taste, John. I'm an economist by profession, having
>studied economics, political science and business administration for
>almost five years All the years I've spent in both government and private
>sector positions has been a fruitful experience, I don't degrade people
>the way you do, constantly.
>

Argumentum ad hominem.

And argumentum ad verecundiam.

I have a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard, so I can beat you on
that kind of argument. But it's a fallacy anyway.

>Simply speaking, I don't take this patronizing shit from you, shape up!
>

Says the fellow who dispenses patronizing shit.

>I demand respect from you, and the way you are dealing with me in this
>thread, is not that of respect.
>

Irony alert!

You are treating simple disagreement as a "lack of respect."

>>
>> And your time discussing voting in the US has been embarrassing, since
>> you are attacking US Republicans for:
>>
>> 1.) wanting to ban mail-in voting.
>> 2.) wanting voter ID
>> 3.) wanting to ban ballot harvesting
>
>They do. Look simply at the H.R.1 (I think the number is) which is going
>through congress as we speak. Period.

Democrats controll Congress. They are in favor of mail-in voting,
opposed to voter ID, and in favor of ballot harvesting.

>
>>
>> All of which would make US elections more like Sweden!
>
>Exactly. And we have no voter irregularities, no voter fraud. Again -
>PERIOD. "Do you understand" - to quote yourself? Spend the resources to
>make this happen, is the answer you don't want do hear - or *understand*?
>

"Resources" isn't the issue. Rules that make cheating difficult are.

>"If it ain't a problem, don't fix it". Remember?
>
>- Make supporting voter lines in Georgia with food illegal, and make
> voting polls fewer and less frequent?
>
>Wake up, John. Your dinosaur views are gone help no one. Not you, not the
>GOP and not real conservatives. Those real conservatives are going to
>learn from what you are defending. They will have to.
>

Real conservatives want clean elections. In Sweden, you have voter
ID, no mail-in voting, and no ballot harvesting.

It's Republicans who want elections like that.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Chuck Schuyler]

I'm really thinking we need a constitutional amendment for our national
elections that A.) Requires the healthy to vote in person unless you are
serving overseas in the military or on official government business. B.)
Requires those too infirm to vote in person to personally request an
absentee ballot and to provide a copy of their photo ID with the return of
the ballot. C.) Requires showing a valid photo ID. D.) Restricts voting to
the proscribed first Tuesday in November.

If you're traveling that day or too lazy to get your ass to the polls,
tough shit. Our elections are "legally" crooked.

Enough.

[ajohnstone]

Loathe as i am about entering a one-to-one debate but i just have to
mention the disingenuous use of polls by John McAdams where he
cherry-picked one statistic to misrepresent its findings.

>>>You mean like defunding the police? A majority of blacks oppose that:

>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

The Gallop poll did not ask a question about defunding the police.

The Right like to misinterpret defund the police to mean disband and
dismantle. Not even BLM advocate such.

Indeed previous polls show only 22% of Black Americans favor abolishing
police departments. However, the vast majority believe reform is needed,
with upward of 90% favoring specific reforms aimed at improving police
relations with the communities they serve and preventing or punishing
abusive police behavior.

BLM supporters suggest that city and State financing for law and order is
overly generous (much like military and defense spending, i might add) and
that takes much needed local budget allocation away from the many social
support services which also contribute to lower crime levels.

Defund simply means reducing and redistributing police department budgets.
It's estimated that over $115 billion is spent on policing nationwide
every year. In 2019, NYC allocated $6 billion to its police department
— a budget that exceeded more than that of the health department,
homeless services, youth and community development, and workforce
development combined. In Minneapolis, 35 percent of the city budget is
for police. Oakland, Calif. $242.5 million policing costs. over 40% of the
total city's spending.

The evidence that promoting community support services reduces crime is
set out in this analysis

https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/VThwp5JSFz7eNKF5GkxW/full

The very same poll you quote also reflects the lack of trust in the
policing of African American communities.

"...Fewer than one in five Black Americans feel very confident that the
police in their area would treat them with courtesy and respect [compared
to over half of white Americans]...When factoring in those who are at
least somewhat confident that the police would treat them well, a majority
of Black Americans (61%) are generally confident, but this is still below
...91% of White Americans..."

That is one big gap.

You also omit to mention a conclusion drawn from the poll you cite.

"...Most Black Americans want the police to spend at least as much time in
their area as they currently do, indicating that they value the need for
the service that police provide. However, that exposure comes with more
*trepidation*..."

If the US Right wishes to be satisfied with the status quo and rest upon
its laurels when it comes to law and order, it will be another sign of a
gradual drift to becoming a failed state. Nobody wishes that to happen.

[John Corbett]

I laugh when I hear charges of people being "disenfranchised". It's so
easy to cast a ballot in this country that if you don't get it done, you
have no one to blame but yourself. Get registered, go to the polls, and if
you have to wait in line, tough shitsky.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 6:10:37 PM UTC-6, ajohnstone wrote:
> Loathe as i am about entering a one-to-one debate but i just have to
> mention the disingenuous use of polls by John McAdams where he
> cherry-picked one statistic to misrepresent its findings.
> >>>You mean like defunding the police? A majority of blacks oppose that:
>
> >>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
> The Gallop poll did not ask a question about defunding the police.
>
> The Right like to misinterpret defund the police to mean disband and
> dismantle. Not even BLM advocate such.
>
> Indeed previous polls show only 22% of Black Americans favor abolishing
> police departments. However, the vast majority believe reform is needed,
> with upward of 90% favoring specific reforms aimed at improving police
> relations with the communities they serve and preventing or punishing
> abusive police behavior.
>
> BLM supporters suggest that city and State financing for law and order is
> overly generous (much like military and defense spending, i might add) and
> that takes much needed local budget allocation away from the many social
> support services which also contribute to lower crime levels.
>
> Defund simply means reducing and redistributing police department budgets.

Baloney. In Minneapolis, where I live, the City Council UNANIMOUSLY voted
to DISBAND the police department.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/?sh=736afcf71a52


The Minneapolis City Council President even claimed that fears of
DISBANDING the police came from a "place of privilege," and of course, she
meant White privilege, the all-encompassing boogeyman:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/minneapolis-city-council-president-claims-fear-of-dismantling-police-comes-from-a-place-of-privilege/

Of course, this is batshit crazy and the Communists that run the city
government here have had to walk back their idiocy.

Regardless, with the manpower reduction in the Minneapolis police
department, the crime rate in Minneapolis has skyrocketed this past year,
and the victims are predominately black. Thanks, Woke Supremacists.

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-violent-crimes-soared-in-2020-amid-pandemic-protests/600019989/

> It's estimated that over $115 billion is spent on policing nationwide

We need to spend more.

> every year. In 2019, NYC allocated $6 billion to its police department
> — a budget that exceeded more than that of the health department,
> homeless services, youth and community development, and workforce
> development combined.

Spend more.

In Minneapolis, 35 percent of the city budget is
> for police.

Spend more.

Oakland, Calif. $242.5 million policing costs. over 40% of the
> total city's spending.

Spend more.

>
> The evidence that promoting community support services reduces crime is
> set out in this analysis
>
> https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/VThwp5JSFz7eNKF5GkxW/full
>
> The very same poll you quote also reflects the lack of trust in the
> policing of African American communities.
>
> "...Fewer than one in five Black Americans feel very confident that the
> police in their area would treat them with courtesy and respect [compared
> to over half of white Americans]...When factoring in those who are at
> least somewhat confident that the police would treat them well, a majority
> of Black Americans (61%) are generally confident, but this is still below
> ...91% of White Americans..."
>
> That is one big gap.

Then stop teaching black kids in school to distrust the police. Stop
promoting welfare programs that reward fatherless homes. Stop teaching
kids here that they live in the most racist society in history, when they
live in the EXACT opposite. Stop trying to raise the minimum wage which
cuts out inner city teens from job opportunities and kills entry level
jobs.

>
> You also omit to mention a conclusion drawn from the poll you cite.
>
> "...Most Black Americans want the police to spend at least as much time in
> their area as they currently do, indicating that they value the need for
> the service that police provide. However, that exposure comes with more
> *trepidation*..."

Sure. The out-of-control ascendant Woke Supremacists that peddle their own
dangerous brand of bigotry TEACH kids to hate (All Whites are Racist!) and
teach that they have no chance of succeeding in a country where the deck
is stacked against them. Leftism is such a cesspit of bitter hatred.

>
> If the US Right wishes to be satisfied with the status quo and rest upon
> its laurels when it comes to law and order, it will be another sign of a
> gradual drift to becoming a failed state. Nobody wishes that to happen.

We need more police. They need more training. We need to sweep the streets
clean of the scummy homeless camps and needles and human feces and garbage
and filth that liberals promote in the name of tolerance. Woke
Supremacists wreck the quality of life for the vast majority of people of
all colors who want safe streets.

[John McAdams]

On 11 Mar 2021 04:15:51 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:31 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed
>> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't
>> like.
>
>What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter
>anything on this subject. Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave
>out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not
>understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one
>percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts? Trump doesn't give a s**t
>about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars
>to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else.
>
>Read up, John, You are out of touch.
>
>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of
>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't
>about votes, is it?
>
>>
>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump.
>
>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do
>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have
>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't
>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected
>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people
>left and right, like you do.
>

Answer the question!

Do you approve of the Tech Giants banning Trump?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

I was listening to the Glenn Beck program yesterday. Not something I
normally do but I was in my car when his program was airing. Apparently
there is a proposal before the Colorado legislature that would allow the
governor to appoint a five person commission that would decide what is
allowable electronic communications. They could decide what is fake news
and what is hate speech and issue fines for those who run afoul of what is
allowable. AOC has proposed similar measures for the entire country. Just
ten years ago such proposals would have been considered too outrageous an
infringement on free speech but now we have people in power who are
seriously proposing these draconian measures. This makes Trump's victory
in 2016 all the more important. With the current make up of the court, I
have no doubt any such laws would be quickly struck down. I'm not as
confident that would happen if Hillary had appointed the last three
justices. This is also the reason court packing cannot be allowed.
Liberals want to be able to strike down the fundamental liberties which
the Bill of Rights protects. They know they could never accomplish that
through amendments but they think if they can tilt the court to the left,
they could achieve their goals through simple legislation.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Perhaps Glenn is one of those, "Free speech for me, but not for me,"
types.

>
> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[ajohnstone]

>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/?sh=736afcf71a52

Changing the manner in which a police department by replacing it with
another law enforcement agency is not abolishing it. It is a reform.

It is not without precedent.

Camden, New Jersey, disbanded its police department and replaced it with a
new force. Camden went about reforming their police. In short, they fired
everyone, dissolved the police union, expanded the police force with
stricter hiring criteria, and rewrote the new department’s use of
force policy. The net result was lower rates of crime and lower rates of
civilian complaints about police behavior.

You said "We need more police. They need more training," exactly what
Camden did.

https://www.aei.org/articles/dont-abolish-the-police-reform-them/

Ithaca, New York has begun enacting its own police reforms, and wants to
rebrand the city’s police as the Department of Community Solutions
and Public Safety. Under the Ithaca proposal, the new police department
will be made up of both armed and unarmed officers, with each responding
to different types of calls — one for criminal activity and the
other for social and mental health concerns where force, actual or
potential, can do more harm than good.

But, of course, some countries faced with endemic problems have taken
drastic action such as abolishing its police forces and building anew.
Georgia in the Caucasus mountains did so - successfully.

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/siezing-moment-rebuilding-georgias-police/

A useful interview about the inherent difficulties with American policing
policies by an Israeli expert

https://prospect.org/justice/expert-u.s.-police-training-use-deadly-force-woefully-inadequate/

The rest of your post is simply a rant, not worth responding to.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 8:19:14 AM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:
> >>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/?sh=736afcf71a52
>
> Changing the manner in which a police department by replacing it with
> another law enforcement agency is not abolishing it. It is a reform.
>

I can't wait until this "Community Safety Work Group" confronts some armed
gang bangers.

> It is not without precedent.
>
> Camden, New Jersey, disbanded its police department and replaced it with a
> new force. Camden went about reforming their police. In short, they fired
> everyone, dissolved the police union, expanded the police force with
> stricter hiring criteria, and rewrote the new department’s use of
> force policy. The net result was lower rates of crime and lower rates of
> civilian complaints about police behavior.
>

I would be willing to bet this was done during a time crime rates were
dropping all over the country which would make Camden's lower crime rate
meaningless.

> You said "We need more police. They need more training," exactly what
> Camden did.
>
> https://www.aei.org/articles/dont-abolish-the-police-reform-them/
>
> Ithaca, New York has begun enacting its own police reforms, and wants to
> rebrand the city’s police as the Department of Community Solutions
> and Public Safety.

Isn't that special. Just give the cops a nice, new touchy-feely name and
that should solve all the problems.

> Under the Ithaca proposal, the new police department
> will be made up of both armed and unarmed officers, with each responding
> to different types of calls — one for criminal activity and the
> other for social and mental health concerns where force, actual or
> potential, can do more harm than good.

Many times a situation which isn't expected to be deadly turns out to be
one and unarmed law enforcement officers could end up in real danger. This
incident took place not far from where I live a few years ago and ended up
with two armed officers losing their lives.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-ohio-police-officers-killed-responding-911-hang-call-n846711

Unarmed officers would be at even greater risk when these incidents turn
violent.

>
> But, of course, some countries faced with endemic problems have taken
> drastic action such as abolishing its police forces and building anew.
> Georgia in the Caucasus mountains did so - successfully.
>
> https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/siezing-moment-rebuilding-georgias-police/
>
> A useful interview about the inherent difficulties with American policing
> policies by an Israeli expert
>
> https://prospect.org/justice/expert-u.s.-police-training-use-deadly-force-woefully-inadequate/
>
> The rest of your post is simply a rant, not worth responding to.

The policies for the use of deadly force are well thought out and defined.
The reform that is needed is to hold cops accountable when they fail to
adhere to these policies. These incidents are the exceptions and not the
rule. Putting unarmed law enforcement officers on the streets to handle
potentially dangerous situations is a recipe for tragedy. Often situations
which aren't expected to become violent quickly turn that way and the cops
better be armed when that happens.

[Bud]

The same here in Philly. Ultra liberal mayor, ultra liberal DA, surge in
crime. George Floyds die daily, not significant if someone who looks like
him takes his life. It is almost certain that the more a city`s government
turns progressive the more crime surges, but you will never see that study
done by ajohnstone`s leftist think tank studies.

I didn`t realize you were in ground zero, Chuck. I linked to this
article in a different post a little while back...

https://www.aol.com/news/minneapolis-prepares-potential-unrest-ahead-110046142.html

A few excerpts were interesting...

"“Absolutely not. There’s still a lot of raw emotion and
trauma that people are experiencing,” Elder said, acknowledging
the protests and pandemic contributed to an increase in crime, noting that
homicides rose from 48 in 2019 to 84 last year."

Notice they always give an excuse why (based on gut feelings, I guess)
of "protests and pandemic". Not that they did everything in their power to
prevent police from doing their jobs, killing moral of the police as well
as defunding them.

Also this...

"“No outsiders allowed,” McDade-Davis said. “On
one hand, residents stood up for themselves and banded together by
blocking off access to a memorial dedicated to Floyd’s legacy.
However, the neighborhood has become ripe for stickups.”

Amazing that an area that isn`t policed is ripe for stickups. ajohnstone`s "community policing" in action.

> > It's estimated that over $115 billion is spent on policing nationwide
> We need to spend more.

How much of that is overtime for this political "unrest"? I remember a
few weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing we had an annual bike race
event, and the police presence was off the hook because of what happened
in Boston. Likely tens of millions of dollars in increased security across
the country because of the actions of two scumbags, probably still to this
day.

Never happen, the Democrats benefit politically by having an angry black
segment of society. They have no interest in actually saying what the
problems are, let alone trying to solve them, the status quo is fine with
them.

> > You also omit to mention a conclusion drawn from the poll you cite.
> >
> > "...Most Black Americans want the police to spend at least as much time in
> > their area as they currently do, indicating that they value the need for
> > the service that police provide. However, that exposure comes with more
> > *trepidation*..."
> Sure. The out-of-control ascendant Woke Supremacists that peddle their own
> dangerous brand of bigotry TEACH kids to hate (All Whites are Racist!) and
> teach that they have no chance of succeeding in a country where the deck
> is stacked against them. Leftism is such a cesspit of bitter hatred.

Every move the Democrats make is designed to increase the bitterness and
hatred, not diminish it. It is quite useful to them.

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 8:19:14 AM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:

> >>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/?sh=736afcf71a52
>
> Changing the manner in which a police department by replacing it with
> another law enforcement agency is not abolishing it. It is a reform.
>
> It is not without precedent.
>
> Camden, New Jersey, disbanded its police department and replaced it with a
> new force. Camden went about reforming their police. In short, they fired
> everyone, dissolved the police union, expanded the police force with
> stricter hiring criteria, and rewrote the new department’s use of
> force policy. The net result was lower rates of crime and lower rates of
> civilian complaints about police behavior.
>
> You said "We need more police. They need more training," exactly what
> Camden did.
>
> https://www.aei.org/articles/dont-abolish-the-police-reform-them/

"First, it was much larger, rising from 250 to 411 officers."

Had they done nothing different than nearly doubling the number of
police it is likely the crime would have decreased.

But lets take a look at this success story...

The crime index for Camden NJ is six (out of a possible 100).

You have a 1 in 64 chance of being a victim of a violent crime in
Camden. Keep in mind this is yearly.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nj/camden/crime

It is 346.67% over the national average in violent crime.

https://www.homesnacks.com/nj/camden-crime/

> Ithaca, New York has begun enacting its own police reforms, and wants to
> rebrand the city’s police as the Department of Community Solutions
> and Public Safety. Under the Ithaca proposal, the new police department
> will be made up of both armed and unarmed officers, with each responding
> to different types of calls — one for criminal activity and the
> other for social and mental health concerns where force, actual or
> potential, can do more harm than good.

<snicker> They are going to send unarmed cops to deal with potentially
violent mental cases?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHBeRPxZ6KE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUxx4t-zBy0

Sounds to me that this "soothing words" type approach is bound to get the
people sent to deal with these situations killed.

And a look at the proposals of the Department of Community Solutions and
Public Safety reveal the typical leftist gobblygoop that is popular these
days..

"The history of white supremacy and oppression in America has had
lasting impacts on non-white individuals, especially Black and Indigenous
people. The weight of living in a society with centuries worth of
unresolved racial tension has traumatic effects on all. Racial trauma is
caused by the concrete and felt impacts of racism. Racist stereotypes and
state sanctioned violence, systems and policies have emotional and
physical impacts on all members of society. All races are affected by
racism and racial trauma, but racial groups with extensive trauma may
experience even higher levels of stress as a result. For that reason we
must create and demand spaces for our healing. The constant stress of
navigating spaces where whiteness is the standard in a non-white body is
challenging. Living in a world where racial tension and division seems to
be rising can be unsettling. We are responsible for our own healing, and
for allowing space for others to heal. Healing from trauma is a
revolutionary act because it breaks down the barriers we have within
ourselves and creates space for us to destroy the barriers separating us
from one another."

Other such twaddle can be found here. Right click to previews the
pages...

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1NTZ6j6WRze75m5fTuf-wC4BgC-1ddJnO

[John McAdams]

On 12 Mar 2021 00:10:34 -0000, ajohnstone <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Loathe as i am about entering a one-to-one debate but i just have to
>mention the disingenuous use of polls by John McAdams where he
>cherry-picked one statistic to misrepresent its findings.
>
>>>>You mean like defunding the police? A majority of blacks oppose that:
>
>>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
>
>The Gallop poll did not ask a question about defunding the police.
>
>The Right like to misinterpret defund the police to mean disband and
>dismantle. Not even BLM advocate such.
>
>Indeed previous polls show only 22% of Black Americans favor abolishing
>police departments. However, the vast majority believe reform is needed,
>with upward of 90% favoring specific reforms aimed at improving police
>relations with the communities they serve and preventing or punishing
>abusive police behavior.
>
>BLM supporters suggest that city and State financing for law and order is
>overly generous (much like military and defense spending, i might add)
>and that takes much needed local budget allocation away from the many
>social support services which also contribute to lower crime levels.
>
>Defund simply means reducing and redistributing police department
>budgets. It's estimated that over $115 billion is spent on policing
>nationwide every year. In 2019, NYC allocated $6 billion to its police

>department ? a budget that exceeded more than that of the health

>department, homeless services, youth and community development, and
>workforce development combined. In Minneapolis, 35 percent of the city
>budget is for police. Oakland, Calif. $242.5 million policing costs. over
>40% of the total city's spending.
>

The "defunding" is pushed by white leftists, with blacks being the main
victims:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/portland-mayor-looks-to-re-fund-police-with-2m-request-as-homicides-spike-but-council-support-unclear

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

Democrats depend on maintaining a permanent underclass because they can
count on getting 90% of that vote. Their worst fear is that some of their
programs might actually work and lift those people out of poverty. That
would make them more likely to vote Republican. I don't think they really
need to worry about any of their programs working. It seems highly
unlikely.

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 2:51:18 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 8:19:14 AM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:
> > >>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/12/minneapolis-city-council-unanimously-votes-to-replace-police-with-community-led-model/?sh=736afcf71a52
> >
> > Changing the manner in which a police department by replacing it with
> > another law enforcement agency is not abolishing it. It is a reform.
> >
> I can't wait until this "Community Safety Work Group" confronts some armed
> gang bangers.
> > It is not without precedent.
> >
> > Camden, New Jersey, disbanded its police department and replaced it with a
> > new force. Camden went about reforming their police. In short, they fired
> > everyone, dissolved the police union, expanded the police force with
> > stricter hiring criteria, and rewrote the new department’s use of
> > force policy. The net result was lower rates of crime and lower rates of
> > civilian complaints about police behavior.
> >
> I would be willing to bet this was done during a time crime rates were
> dropping all over the country which would make Camden's lower crime rate
> meaningless.

I think you would be wise to be skeptical of this (as with any narrative
a leftist tries to sell). I`ve been looking at various sources of
information about crime in Camden, I hope you don`t mind me taking this
opportunity in your post to present them.

First, a few thoughts. They keep using 2012 as the start date for this
program, even though it wasn`t implemented until 2013. The reason for this
is because there were 67 murders in 2012 and 57 murders in 2013. You can
see why they want to use the 2012 figures to show improvement. Another
thing to consider is that with murders in cities with high drug crime, the
murder rate is a function of whether the person who was being shot at was
fatally hit. You can have more shootings, just less hitting.

Another thing being touted is the 'lower rates of civilian complaints",
which could easily be the result of police cams, which weren`t used
widespread 8 years ago. They likely have two effects, they make the cop
behave as his actions are filmed and also the civilian can`t lie about
what a cop did when the encounter is filmed, so they don`t bother making a
complaint.

That bit of critical thinking aside, here are some facts and data
(mostly showing the claims that Camden has a lower crime rate to be a
lie)...

https://www.policearrests.com/new-jersey-arrest-records/camden/

These charts (from 2016) tell a different story. And note *zero* arrests
for murder in 2016.

In 2014, Camden was the most dangerous city in the country...

https://money.cnn.com/gallery/real_estate/2014/02/03/dangerous-cities/index.html

And still today is the most dangerous city in New Jersey...

https://www.roadsnacks.net/most-dangerous-cities-in-new-jersey/

And ninth in the country...

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

Only a leftist would try to present this as some sort of success story.

[ajohnstone]

Once more i encounter "American Exceptionalism"

Once again, any criticism of the way American society is run, raises the
hackles of those who frequent this forum. Once again the assumption made
is that the USA is the best at everything and has nothing to learn from
any other nation.

Yet the paradox is that those promoting America is great can't help but
expose its weaknesses and its failures.

Throughout history, America has suffered from its law and order policies.
From the prohibition to the war on drugs. From Jim Crow laws to the
"stolen election". The separation of church and state but the political
power of religious Christian evangelicalism.

There is a naive belief that passing laws can fix things, in particular,
the way people think and behave. The world doesn't work in that manner.
Material conditions have to change before people's ideas do.

There is nothing new about Alex Jones or Qanon. In the past it was Father
Coughlin and the "Know Nothing" Party. You had Rush Limbaugh and before
that you had Charles Lindbergh. Before Trump there was Huey Long. I could
go on

Americans just re-lives the mistakes of its past and re-names them.

Those who proclaim the USA a failed state may not be 100% correct but they
do indicate the way things are presently going.

A failed state is one where governments are not legitimate. Republicans
say Biden's government isn't. Before him the Democratic Party said Trump
wasn't.

It is a failed state when the rule of law has broken down and how often
have i noted here those who declared BLM and anti-police riots were
nationwide and endorsed by governors and mayors, democracy was undermined
i was told by protests and a sympathetic media to them.

Economically, financial elites get away with whatever they like. There is
rampant corruption of politicians through lobbyists and Citizens United
legality of bribery called donations. First the Trump tax cuts, then now
the GOP wants Estate Tax cuts.

Lastly, failed states aren’t able to provide basics for people
anymore. Were the lines to the food banks a figment of my imagination made
up by the media? And because they aren’t able to provide basics,
life becomes a brutal battle for self-preservation, and survival: with
mounting cruelty and brutality, scapegoating with hate and violence.
America is collectively increasingly exhibiting symptoms of mass neuroses
and sociopathy, and i include those of both right and left political
dispositions.

Healthcare, retirement, medicine, education is viewed as a lesser
priority to a bloated military and lucrative armaments industry.

Sound like America to me is becoming a dystopia, if it isn't already. Time
for a reality check before it is too late. And i know the truth hurts and
that denial is more comforting.

America is far too important to the planet to leave it in the hands of its
citizens who have been shown to be too irresponsible or plainly too
ignorant.

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 10:41:34 PM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:
> Once more i encounter "American Exceptionalism"
>
> Once again, any criticism of the way American society is run, raises the
> hackles of those who frequent this forum.

You keep making assertions that you know what our problems are and why
they are. You keep using questionable, biased sources to bolster your
viewpoints. We are here, you are not.

>Once again the assumption made
> is that the USA is the best at everything and has nothing to learn from
> any other nation.

My assumption is that liberalism is ruining everything that is good
about Western culture in Europe. I look at Europe and I see many countries
that are ruining the future of their countries just to show how
progressive they can be.

> Yet the paradox is that those promoting America is great can't help but
> expose its weaknesses and its failures.

Leftists think it is their job to constantly point these out. The left
in this country wallows in the sins of our history, as do you below. You
and they have nothing positive to say and certainly nothing positive to
offer.

> Throughout history, America has suffered from its law and order policies.
> From the prohibition to the war on drugs. From Jim Crow laws to the
> "stolen election". The separation of church and state but the political
> power of religious Christian evangelicalism.
>
> There is a naive belief that passing laws can fix things, in particular,
> the way people think and behave. The world doesn't work in that manner.

Nothing like being lectured about how the world works by a person who
seems entirely clueless about how the world works. You think looters only
steal necessities. You think it is feasible to deescalate dangerous
situations with crazed violent people with soft words and flowers.

> Material conditions have to change before people's ideas do.

Ok, in many poor areas in this country a kid can make $1,000 dollars a
day standing on a street corner with his friends, listening to music and
joking around, by selling drugs. All he has to do is be willing to kill
the other poor kid who wants to make $1,000 a day. How far do you have to
raise minimum wage to compete with this? These kids for the most part have
nothing to offer any employer, they are basically unemployable.. I would
bet that if you dumped all the money from this recent stimulus package
into the top ten worst cities in America you wouldn`t effect any real
change (unless is was all put into law enforcement). Saying these problems
are the result of economics is a cop out, these problems are now ingrained
as part of a culture. Thug Life, as Tupac Shakur put it.

> There is nothing new about Alex Jones or Qanon. In the past it was Father
> Coughlin and the "Know Nothing" Party. You had Rush Limbaugh and before
> that you had Charles Lindbergh. Before Trump there was Huey Long. I could
> go on
>
> Americans just re-lives the mistakes of its past and re-names them.

It is only your opinion that these are all mistakes.

I`ll tell you what, all across this country people were being attacked
and harassed for wearing pins or hats in support of Trump. Trump
supporters would be appalled if there were a series of physical attacks on
Hillary supporters because they were showing support for her. But the
people on the left didn`t mind at all that Trump people were being
attacked, they felt the attacks were justified. The people who support
Trump are generally rational and willing to discuss ideas and the people
on the left these days are shrill, irrational authoritarian dictators.

> Those who proclaim the USA a failed state may not be 100% correct but they
> do indicate the way things are presently going.

They are being dragged there by the left.

> A failed state is one where governments are not legitimate. Republicans
> say Biden's government isn't. Before him the Democratic Party said Trump
> wasn't.

Everyone is acting as if Biden is the legitimate elected President.

> It is a failed state when the rule of law has broken down and how often
> have i noted here those who declared BLM and anti-police riots were
> nationwide and endorsed by governors and mayors, democracy was undermined
> i was told by protests and a sympathetic media to them.

There is turmoil because the press uses it`s power to still up turmoil
and the Democratic Party uses it`s power to stir up turmoil. They both do
this because they both benefit from the turmoil. They need black anger
energized because that translates into more votes come election time, an
uninterested black voting base doesn`t get out to vote.

> Economically, financial elites get away with whatever they like. There is
> rampant corruption of politicians through lobbyists and Citizens United
> legality of bribery called donations.

Money talks under any system.

> First the Trump tax cuts, then now
> the GOP wants Estate Tax cuts.

There were Estate Tax cuts under Trump, Biden want to do away or limit
them.

> Lastly, failed states aren’t able to provide basics for people
> anymore. Were the lines to the food banks a figment of my imagination made
> up by the media?

Is anyone starving here in America? No, so save your dramatics.

>And because they aren’t able to provide basics,
> life becomes a brutal battle for self-preservation, and survival: with
> mounting cruelty and brutality, scapegoating with hate and violence.

Did you watch a Mad Max video and think that is what America is about?

> America is collectively increasingly exhibiting symptoms of mass neuroses
> and sociopathy, and i include those of both right and left political
> dispositions.
>
> Healthcare, retirement, medicine, education is viewed as a lesser
> priority to a bloated military and lucrative armaments industry.

Actually Trump was taking care of this. He pulled us out of several
hotspots, he was talking about pulling out troops from Europe and Korea.
Biden gets in and he is flying B-52 over Syria hoping they will get shot
down so he can start a war. Starting trouble all over the Middle East
(where Trump was brokering peace agreements), Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Syria, there isn`t a Middle Eastern country he isn`t trying to get into it
with.

And notice there is a surge of illegal aliens at out southern border?
Trump had that problem handled, now it isn`t.

> Sound like America to me is becoming a dystopia, if it isn't already. Time
> for a reality check before it is too late. And i know the truth hurts and
> that denial is more comforting.

I have a better idea of what is going on in this country than you do.

> America is far too important to the planet to leave it in the hands of its
> citizens who have been shown to be too irresponsible or plainly too
> ignorant.

We get the leaders we deserve. And right now we deserve a befuddled old
man.

[Bud]

I remember I wrote this to Sandy McCrosky in 2016 (I think it was this
discussion that stopped him from participating in this forum), before
Trump was elected...

"You can send limos to their doors to take them to the voting places or
push the voting machines to their doorstep and pull the lever for them and
you still aren`t going to get the lazy culture that liberalism has created
to vote in sizable numbers."

I think the Democrats came to the same conclusion and devised a work
around. They`d ballot harvest from that lazy culture that liberalism
created.

> Their worst fear is that some of their
> programs might actually work and lift those people out of poverty. That
> would make them more likely to vote Republican.

I think they are going to be in for a big surprise for the Democrats
when these Mexicans that come in become legal and start voting Republican.
They are hard working people, and despite what leftist think, it isn`t a
class struggle, it is a struggle of those who do against those that do
not. These Mexicans aren`t going to bust their asses all day only to pay
taxes to pay for others to sit on their asses all day.

And of course instead of artificially raising the minimum wage as the
Democrats want, just removing all the illegal immigrants in this country
would do it naturally. Landscaping is brutal work, and you`d have to pay
American kids at least $25 an hour to get them to do it. And the
landscaping would still need to be done so that would be the rate. This
would raise wages across the board, no government intervention required.

> I don't think they really
> need to worry about any of their programs working. It seems highly
> unlikely.

The programs aren`t designed to fix problems, they are designed to
perpetuate them.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 9:41:34 PM UTC-6, ajohnstone wrote:

> Once more i encounter "American Exceptionalism"

Once again you delete the comment you are responding to hence making it
tough to figure out to whom you're responding, but I've determined you're
responding to me.

>
> Once again, any criticism of the way American society is run, raises the
> hackles of those who frequent this forum. Once again the assumption made
> is that the USA is the best at everything and has nothing to learn from
> any other nation.

Strawman. You are assigning a position to me that I do not take.

>
> Yet the paradox is that those promoting America is great can't help but
> expose its weaknesses and its failures.

Another logical fallacy. One doesn't necessarily flow from the other. Any
open society like the USA constantly has it's "weaknesses" exposed. Our
current "weakness" is the infestation into our body politic the failed
ideas you promote. The new Woke Supremacists peddling their own brand of
racism seem absolutely clueless how close their ideas are to those of the
KKK, etc.

>
> Throughout history, America has suffered from its law and order policies.
> From the prohibition to the war on drugs. From Jim Crow laws to the
> "stolen election". The separation of church and state but the political
> power of religious Christian evangelicalism.

And now we are at war with Woke Supremacists. It will be a tough fight
because this evil has gripped the country. We banned slavery with the 13th
Amendment and we will need to ban this brand of bigotry with a new
amendment to the constitution that prohibits assigning sins of the past to
an entire race of people in the present. The amendment should outlaw the
promotion of the idea commonly known as critical race theory throughout
the Federal government and US armed forces. It should prohibit Federal
dollars, grants, and contracts to any businesses or corporations that
promote the evil known as CRT. No one can outlaw believing nutty stuff
about the JFK assassination or 9/11, etc. but we can certainly stop this
CRT evil from being taught as factual in our schools and government or
allowing businesses to partner with the government if they promote this
bigotry.

>
> There is a naive belief that passing laws can fix things, in particular,
> the way people think and behave. The world doesn't work in that manner.
> Material conditions have to change before people's ideas do.

>
> There is nothing new about Alex Jones or Qanon. In the past it was Father
> Coughlin and the "Know Nothing" Party. You had Rush Limbaugh and before
> that you had Charles Lindbergh. Before Trump there was Huey Long. I could go on

And now there is Robin DiAngelo and CRT, and the Democrats with their
dangerous Russian collusion hoaxes, building walls around our Capitol for
non-existent "invasions" from MAGA supporters that the politicized FBI
can't quite seem to identify.

>
> Americans just re-lives the mistakes of its past and re-names them.
>
> Those who proclaim the USA a failed state may not be 100% correct but they
> do indicate the way things are presently going.

Yes, we are on a dangerous path. Your ideas need to be defeated soundly.

>
> A failed state is one where governments are not legitimate. Republicans
> say Biden's government isn't. Before him the Democratic Party said Trump
> wasn't.
>
> It is a failed state when the rule of law has broken down

You're the guy who reimagines police departments having their funding cut
and redistributed to community outreach programs, right? Irony alert.

and how often
> have i noted here those who declared BLM and anti-police riots were
> nationwide and endorsed by governors and mayors, democracy was undermined
> i was told by protests and a sympathetic media to them.
>
> Economically, financial elites get away with whatever they like. There is
> rampant corruption of politicians through lobbyists and Citizens United
> legality of bribery called donations. First the Trump tax cuts, then now
> the GOP wants Estate Tax cuts.

Your Gallop is Gishing. And your fallacy here is form of a cause and
effect fallacy called Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Linking tax cuts or
estate tax cuts to financial "elites" getting away with whatever they like
seems pretty tenuous.

>
> Lastly, failed states aren’t able to provide basics for people
> anymore. Were the lines to the food banks a figment of my imagination made
> up by the media? And because they aren’t able to provide basics,

Okay, this is becoming laughable at this point. Yes, 300lb over-stuffed
Americans in lines at food banks for their frozen pizzas and microwave
meals and powdered donuts playing on their iPhones and driving away in
their Land Rovers they purchased from their last cash-out refinance in a
booming real estate market. I don't want to minimize the hurt for those
who needed the temporary help (I'm glad the help was there), but it is
definitely a figment of your imagination to equate the trips some took to
a food bank as proof that the US is a "failed state" of some sort. Few in
America lack for any material needs.

> life becomes a brutal battle for self-preservation, and survival: with
> mounting cruelty and brutality, scapegoating with hate and violence.
> America is collectively increasingly exhibiting symptoms of mass neuroses
> and sociopathy, and i include those of both right and left political
> dispositions.

We are definitely in a sort of "Cold" Civil War. Woke Supremacists will be
defeated. Your idea that the State is greater than the individual will
never prevail.

>
> Healthcare, retirement, medicine, education is viewed as a lesser
> priority to a bloated military and lucrative armaments industry.

That's not what our budget says:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Socialists aren't real good with facts and numbers, so I'll hip you: we
spend WAAAAAY more on social concerns like health care and public
education and our social security safety net than we do on our military.
We apparently need a big military to guard Washington D.C. against MAGA
supporters an QAnon-types.

>
> Sound like America to me is becoming a dystopia, if it isn't already.

Please promise to stay in your problem-free utopia and not to visit our
dystopia.

Time
> for a reality check before it is too late. And i know the truth hurts and
> that denial is more comforting.

Au contraire, I feel we are becoming exactly what you'd like it to become.
And we must fight against it.

>
> America is far too important to the planet to leave it in the hands of its
> citizens who have been shown to be too irresponsible or plainly too
> ignorant.

Elect America First Republicans. Amend the constitution to outlaw Woke
Supremacy. Prohibit mail-in voting. Force citizens to show a picture ID
when voting. Build the wall on the border and tear the Pelosi wall down in
D.C. Amend the constitution to force a balanced budget before our money
inflates to useless toilet paper. Return the election of US Senators to an
appointment by their State Governors (done this way pre-1920).

[Chuck Schuyler]

Yep, the "race" industry--including scholarships for college, government
awarded minority business contracts, diversity counselors and on and
on--is probably a 100 billion dollar a year industry that employs tens of
thousands of people, directly or indirectly. Real racism as classically
understood had trickled down to almost nothing in the past several
decades, so the race industry saw its prestige and power drying up and had
to go out and redefine racism to stay in business. And business is
booming.

Martin Luther King Jr. would be considered a racist today. He wanted
America to judge on the content of our character. The Woke Supremacists
want to judge on the color of our skin. We're going backwards.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 10:41:34 PM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote:

> Once more i encounter "American Exceptionalism"
>
> Once again, any criticism of the way American society is run, raises the
> hackles of those who frequent this forum. Once again the assumption made
> is that the USA is the best at everything and has nothing to learn from
> any other nation.
>

I've never understood why foreigners feel a need to criticize our society.
I've never had an urge to criticize how people from other countries choose
to live. That's their business.

> Yet the paradox is that those promoting America is great can't help but
> expose its weaknesses and its failures.
>

As I was saying...

> Throughout history, America has suffered from its law and order policies.
> From the prohibition to the war on drugs. From Jim Crow laws to the
> "stolen election". The separation of church and state but the political
> power of religious Christian evangelicalism.
>

I'm sure we could find lots to criticize about your country but I for one
really don't care about your flaws.

> There is a naive belief that passing laws can fix things, in particular,
> the way people think and behave. The world doesn't work in that manner.
> Material conditions have to change before people's ideas do.
>
> There is nothing new about Alex Jones or Qanon. In the past it was Father
> Coughlin and the "Know Nothing" Party. You had Rush Limbaugh and before
> that you had Charles Lindbergh. Before Trump there was Huey Long. I could
> go on

I'm sure your politicians and commentators were all pure of spirit.

As for Rush Limbaugh, his passing was a great loss to this country.

As for Trump, for all his flaws, he accomplished a great deal in just four
years.

>
> Americans just re-lives the mistakes of its past and re-names them.
>

Why do you care?

> Those who proclaim the USA a failed state may not be 100% correct but they
> do indicate the way things are presently going.

Bullshit. If our country is so screwed up, why do people from all over the
world want to emigrate here?

>
> A failed state is one where governments are not legitimate. Republicans
> say Biden's government isn't. Before him the Democratic Party said Trump
> wasn't.

That's what losers do when they lose a close election. It's like the
losing team complaining that the referees screwed them. It's human nature
to make excuses. Are you going to tell us it doesn't happen elsewhere?

>
> It is a failed state when the rule of law has broken down and how often
> have i noted here those who declared BLM and anti-police riots were
> nationwide and endorsed by governors and mayors, democracy was undermined
> i was told by protests and a sympathetic media to them.

Not all states failed. Just the ones run by Democrats.

>
> Economically, financial elites get away with whatever they like.

That's called free enterprise. It's one of the reasons so many people want
to emigrate here, legally and illegally.

> There is
> rampant corruption of politicians through lobbyists and Citizens United
> legality of bribery called donations. First the Trump tax cuts, then now
> the GOP wants Estate Tax cuts.

There are corrupt politicians wherever there are politicians.

>
> Lastly, failed states aren’t able to provide basics for people
> anymore. Were the lines to the food banks a figment of my imagination made
> up by the media?

Food banks were providing basics for people. It's an example of American
compassion.

> And because they aren’t able to provide basics,

If the poor have it so bad in this country, why is there a flood of
illegal aliens coming into this country with little more than the clothes
on their backs? Could it be they know they will have a better life?

> life becomes a brutal battle for self-preservation, and survival: with
> mounting cruelty and brutality, scapegoating with hate and violence.
> America is collectively increasingly exhibiting symptoms of mass neuroses
> and sociopathy, and i include those of both right and left political
> dispositions.
>

We'll work it out. We always have.

> Healthcare, retirement, medicine, education is viewed as a lesser
> priority to a bloated military and lucrative armaments industry.
>

We have the finest healthcare in the world.

> Sound like America to me is becoming a dystopia, if it isn't already. Time
> for a reality check before it is too late. And i know the truth hurts and
> that denial is more comforting.
>
> America is far too important to the planet to leave it in the hands of its
> citizens who have been shown to be too irresponsible or plainly too
> ignorant.

Spare us. Why don't you worry about your own country and let us worry
about ours. We really don't care what outsiders think of how we manage OUR
affairs. You have no say here.

[John Corbett]

It's a prime example of the old adage that figures don't lie but liars
figure.

[Glenn V.]

Fwiw - I strongly support every argument you so diligently have brought
forward in this posting.

[Glenn V.]

Incredible. You really believe this? What an astounding load of
gobbledybgook. While the D's, like the R's, certainly have far to much
appreciation vs those who give them their bribes, the G's are far worse.
At least the D's try, the GOP are swindling the American working class
into believing they are their voters, their folks. Which is almost
likeable to Trumps Big Lie. The GOP pushed through 2 trillions in tax cuts
for the top 1%, while they all voted aginst Bidens Covid relief. Now
that's a party that supports the American working class, right?

[Bud]

Trump supported the working class correctly, by allowing the system to
work with the least interference. And it was working, had the Chinese
virus not hit, the economy would have continued to improve, Trump`s
policies would have been vindicated, Trump would have been re-elected and
life would be good here.

Who do with think is going to suffer the most when the inflation kicks
in and gas is $5 a gallon?

[John Corbett]

On Monday, March 15, 2021 at 7:02:51 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:

Now the Biden administration wants to pay for the stimulus by raising
taxes. Great idea. Hand out "free" money and then take more of people's
money through taxes. Is this a great country, or what?

Government cannot create wealth. If it could, why hand out just a measly
$1400. Why not give everybody a million? Government can only give the
people what it has first taken from them.

[John McAdams]

On 12 Mar 2021 13:06:48 -0000, John McAdams

Simple question.

Are you afraid to answer?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

Glenn, I would like to see a direct answer on this point. If you agree
with it, just own it, and explain why you think political censorship isn't
deadly dangerous to a liberal Democracy. If you don't agree with it, the
simply repudiate it. I think in a *fair* contest of ideas, the right
ideas will win in the end. And I would say that if the Left had a the
equivalent of a Trump that was being banned.

Brock

[Chuck Schuyler]

I absolutely agree with Brock.

And Glenn seems to be unaware that our two major US parties have somewhat
"flipped" recently. I'll let Glenn research on his own, but IN GENERAL the
Democratic party is supported by upper income elites and the managerial
class, and the Republican party is IN GENERAL supported by small business
owners and the working class. Today's liberals are the purveyors of the
bigoted beliefs based off of begged questions that comprises critical race
theory and today's liberals are absolutely fine with conservative speech
being banned and rigging elections by loosening the safeguards that
protect each vote. Glenn, those tax cuts you CLAIM go to the upper 1%
(I'll allow this claim to go unchallenged) would probably benefit
Democrats more than Republicans. The myth of the Mr. Moneybags Monopoly
character with a monocle being a Republican is just that; a myth.
America's "Greedy One-Percenters" skew Democrat and oftentimes make a
six-figure income working for the government or in an industry that
benefits from being connected to government contracts and largesse.

There is something earth shattering going on in this country right now.
It's no hyperbole to say we are in a "Cold" Civil War. Republicans want
freedom, and Democrats want control. Let's hope the cold war doesn't turn
hot.

So, Glenn, answer John's question please. Let's hear where you stand on
free speech. If we do not allow all political speech--whether you think it
dangerous or not--we're doomed. Are you okay with Big Tech censoring Trump
and other Republicans and other thoughts and ideas that Big Tech feels is
dangerous?

[Bud]

They used to say "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". This is robbing Paul to
pay Paul.

[John Corbett]

The left could never win in a fair contest of ideas. They need a biased
media and the tech giants putting their thumb on the scale to make it a
fair fight. It's kind of like a handicap in bowling or golf. It gives the
weaker player reasonable chance to win.

[John Corbett]

In this particular case, it actually is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Not
everyone is getting "free money". Only those below a certain income level
will. Not everyone is going to get their taxes raised. Biden said during
the campaign that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than
$400K. We know what campaign promises are worth but let's say he actually
holds to that. That means the people who are going to get their taxes
raised are the same people who didn't get the "free money". It thus
becomes just a wealth redistribution scam. Sadly, the people who benefit
from this have no conscience about this legalized thievery. If you or I
were to rob a rich person at gunpoint and give the money to a poor person,
we would go to jail. But somehow it becomes OK for the government to do
it.

People also fail to realize when this legalized thievery takes place it
becomes a drag on the economy. When the people with the capital get
overtaxed, they are less apt to invest in growth. Our economy stagnated
from the last few years of the Bush administration through all eight years
of the Obama administration. When Trump pushed through his tax cuts, the
economy exploded with both job and wage growth not seen in decades. As JFK
observed, a rising tide raises all boats. The Democrats would rather pit
one class against another. They have convinced low information voters that
they can only get ahead if we sock it to the wealthy.

[Chuck Schuyler]

The left and their media acolytes have so demonized the issue of taxes and
tax cuts and who pays their "fair share" of taxes that it's impossible to
have an honest conversation about the topic.

The power to tax is also the power to control. and destroy The FAIREST tax
system is also a system where--regardless of tax RATES--all Americans feel
the system works without unduly favoring one group over another. The way
to DO this, in my opinion, is to eliminate all deductions in the code and
flatten the rate. Exempt the first "X" in income from Federal taxation and
tax everything beyond that at a certain percentage, no deductions.

Nearly every Republican would go along with something like this. Dems?
Nah. It's about control with Dems. Doling out tax breaks for starting wind
farms or buying an electric car or other pet issues is part of why the tax
code is so complex.

On a related issue regarding the capital gains tax, I remember some years
ago candidate Obama being confronted with the facts that a LOWER capital
gains tax cut actually RAISED more money for the treasury because
investors saw an opportunity to sell the asset being taxed at a lower rate
and deploying the gains into other money making, entrepreneurial ventures.
Obama could only stammer that the higher rate was "fairer" even though the
treasury benefited less, which tells you a little about the mindset of the
left. Dems would rather punish than raise the money.

Glenn and ajohnstone would rather run with the narrative that tax cuts go
to the "greedy one-percent" for example. I'll bet Glenn and AJ also
believe women make 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man makes.

[Chuck Schuyler]

There's the old adage: "When robbing Peter, you can always count on the
support of Paul."

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2021 18:03:33 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:19:35 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 21 Feb 2021 23:48:43 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> >John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would
> >> >think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia.
> >> >
> >> >So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee
> >> >ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter
> >> >participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those
> >> >measures are pretty clear?
> >> >
> >> >Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy?
> >> >
> >> You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly
> >> have plenty in Scandinavia.
> >>
> >> Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it.
> >>
> >> People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed.
> >>
> >> Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as
> >> evidence that the Democrats want to cheat.
> >>
> >> Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia:
> >>
> >> https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/
> >>
> >> There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making
> >> voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it
> >> super-easy to cheat.
> >
> >What's this? I'm not talking about "super easy" or not. I'm talking about
> >free and fair elections where everyone who want to vote is, in fact, able
> >to vote. You either have this ambition or you don't. You know, just like
> >"Scandinavia" and the rest of Western Europe have organized their
> >ambitions of inclusion of **all voters** in their democracies.
> Are people in Europe required to show ID when voting?
>
> Are people allowed to mail in ballots?
>
> Is "ballot harvesting" allowed? That is, can somebody go into a
> nursing home, get all the residents to sign ballots for the favorite
> candidates of the harvesters, and then submit those?
> >
> >If Europe can do this, the US certainly can. If the will is there, the
> >resources are there and the ambition to have a democracy of inclusion is
> >there, in the first place. You either do this and have this ambition or
> >you don't. Not a relative thing, this. And certainly no rocket science at
> >all.
> >
> What you call "democracy of inclusion," if taken to the extreme,
> allows fraud. There needs to be reasonable safeguards.
> >>
> >> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that
> >> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank
> >> account and even collect welfare!
> >>
> No response?
> >> Note that in the article some election officials complained about
> >> being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots.
> >
> >So why wasn't the proper resources to deal with these highly expected high
> >numbers of absentee ballots allocated to the districts?
> >
> The COVID thing his a few months before the election, and you can't
> instantly ramp up.
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they
> >> should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020
> >> that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to
> >> any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence
> >> in the system.
> >
> >You don't think?? What evidence are you aware of that election officials
> >around the US are not? Election officials from both camps and courts with
> >judges appointed by both R's and D's? I'd be interested in hearing about
> >the evidence for this? You're an expert in distinguishing evidence from
> >fantasies and bs, as I recall.
> >
> You are just arguing that the election was not stolen.
>
> I'm pointing out that irregularities allow people to believe that the
> election was stolen. Or even just doubt the legitimacy of the system.
>
> Again: elections should not merely *be* fair and honest, they should
> *appear* to be fair and honest.
> >>
> >> So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct
> >> identity politics, eh?
> >
> >Yes, sure. Once you, perhaps, consider the fact that every single district
> >in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Georgia and Arizona where the GOP
> >wanted to throw out millions of votes are districts overwhelmingly
> >dominated by non-white voters. Huh?
> >
> Those districts had Democrat election officials who would be prone to
> cheat to help the Democrats.

As a court has just found in Michigan...

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/03/16/mi-court-michigan-secretary-of-states-absentee-ballot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/

> It's obvious you a knee deep in identity politics. I'm sure that
> makes you fell great about yourself, but it's a way of avoiding real
> issues.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

There is no doubt election laws were broken in a number of key states. In
Pennsylvania the state legislature determined that mail in ballots had to
arrive by election day in order to be counted. The courts overruled that
by allowing those ballots to be collected for up to three days after the
election. The Constitution gives state legislatures the sole power to
determine how the electors are chosen. The courts illegally usurped that
power.

There is also no doubt the disregarding of state laws worked to the
advantage of the Democrats. Donald Trump won the same day voting. It was
the mail in balloting that tipped the scales in five key states. Relaxing
of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being
counted than should have been allowed under the law. We will never know if
adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to
change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules
were bent to help the Democrats.

[BT George]

And SCOTUS should have heard the challenges to those violations. I
totally reject that other States that actually *followed* Federal election
laws have no standing to challenge the results in states where there is a
contention those laws were not followed. I don't care what can of worms
it opens, each of the 50 States has a potential grievance when their
sovereign will is being overturned based purported failure of another
state to follow *Federal* election mandates. (E.g., "The Legislature
shall...")

[Glenn V.]

The Pennsylvania SC allowed this, yes. And the US SC wouldn't allow the
case to be considered.

This is the single one of all the sixty-five cases that went to the
courts. The rest were without merits. And this one had nothing to do with
voter fraud, per se. The approximately ten thousand votes that were
removed would not have changed the outcome.

> There is also no doubt the disregarding of state laws worked to the
> advantage of the Democrats. Donald Trump won the same day voting. It was
> the mail in balloting that tipped the scales in five key states.

Indeed. An why? Because Trump had told everyone that for months that mail
in balloting "was bad". As he knew the pandemic would make people use this
option in large numbers, which the Democrats supported all along. And he
was right. People did. Trumps theatrics on election eve about this was
comical. "What happened? As far as I'm concerned we did win the election".
Fully aware, of course that mail in votes would come in later - and be bad
for him.

> Relaxing of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being
> counted than should have been allowed under the law.

> We will never know if adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to
> change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules
> were bent to help the Democrats.

Where did those bent rules occur? To only benefit Democrats? And why did
state election officials from both parties certify the results in those
states?

[Glenn V.]

Brock, what does this question have to do with this discussion? John
"assumed" opinions of mine, to later *demand* an answer those assumptions
of his. Why is this relevant to this discussion and why would we let John
divert the discussion this way? Is that about a fair contest of ideas?
What gives John the right to *demand* answers from anyone here? Free
speech?

If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer
any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what
was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread.

Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the
bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to
vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the
topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question.
It goes both ways, Brock.

FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Mar 2021 01:50:53 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:11:23 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> > On 12 Mar 2021 13:06:48 -0000, John McAdams
>> > <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of
>> > >>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't
>> > >>about votes, is it?
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump.
>> > >>

No response.

>> > >>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do
>> > >>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have
>> > >>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't
>> > >>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected
>> > >>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people
>> > >>left and right, like you do.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Answer the question!
>> > >
>> > >Do you approve of the Tech Giants banning Trump?
>> > >
>> > Simple question.
>> >
>> > Are you afraid to answer?
>> >

>> Glenn, I would like to see a direct answer on this point. If you agree
>> with it, just own it, and explain why you think political censorship isn't
>> deadly dangerous to a liberal Democracy. If you don't agree with it, the
>> simply repudiate it. I think in a *fair* contest of ideas, the right
>> ideas will win in the end. And I would say that if the Left had a the
>> equivalent of a Trump that was being banned.
>>
>

>Brock, what does this question have to do with this discussion? John
>"assumed" opinions of mine, to later *demand* an answer those assumptions
>of his. Why is this relevant to this discussion and why would we let John
>divert the discussion this way? Is that about a fair contest of ideas?
>What gives John the right to *demand* answers from anyone here? Free
>speech?
>

You were bashing Trump.

So it was reasonable to ask, since you hate him so much, whether you
want him censored.

You were the first one coming here and demanding answers. You didn't
get the answers you wanted.

>If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer
>any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what
>was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread.
>

If you are not afraid to answer the question, why don't you answer the
question?

>Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the
>bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to
>vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the
>topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question.
>It goes both ways, Brock.
>

I've answered you. I've pointed out that the voting reforms
Republicans want are THE SAME PROCEDURES IN PLACE IN SWEDEN.

>FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.

Then what are those opinions?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

SCOTUS split 4-4 whether to hear the case. Roberts joined with the three
liberals. SCOTUS never ruled on merits of the case.

> This is the single one of all the sixty-five cases that went to the
> courts. The rest were without merits. And this one had nothing to do with
> voter fraud, per se. The approximately ten thousand votes that were
> removed would not have changed the outcome.
> > There is also no doubt the disregarding of state laws worked to the
> > advantage of the Democrats. Donald Trump won the same day voting. It was
> > the mail in balloting that tipped the scales in five key states.
> Indeed. An why? Because Trump had told everyone that for months that mail
> in balloting "was bad". As he knew the pandemic would make people use this
> option in large numbers, which the Democrats supported all along. And he
> was right. People did. Trumps theatrics on election eve about this was
> comical. "What happened? As far as I'm concerned we did win the election".
> Fully aware, of course that mail in votes would come in later - and be bad
> for him.

Democrats knew the mail in vote would go heavily for them. I wonder how
they knew that.

> > Relaxing of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being
> > counted than should have been allowed under the law.
>
> > We will never know if adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to
> > change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules
> > were bent to help the Democrats.
> Where did those bent rules occur? To only benefit Democrats?

Yes.

> And why did
> state election officials from both parties certify the results in those
> states?

Election officials jobs are to count the votes. They were simply following
the order of the courts.

[BT George]

Glenn I don't care what it has to do with the issue at hand. Nor do I
care if you answer John. But since he asked, I was wanting to see you
answer. Why? Because I assume you would be for the censorship? Hardly,
but by the same token I think silence is allowing him and others room to
invalidate legitimate things you have to say.

I regard you as one of my best friends in the "virtual" realm and truly
enjoyed our time together in Dallas in 2016. That won't ever change,
because I am not a political ideologue. But I *am* a person who values
rock solid principles that underlie a healthy Democracy, and to me, it's
just as legitimate a question if shutting down speech one doesn't agree
with (as some Tech companies have Trump and other non Progressives) isn't
just as dangerous to a Democracy as trying to make voting (unreasonably)
tough. Since I am *confident* you agree, I was actually trying to draw
you out, because I do think some of the harsh tone directed your way is
based on untenable *assumptions* about your motives in several areas.

You are a Left-thinker, but one of the most honest and principled I have
ever had the pleasure of dialoging with. Hence, I want you to be able to
contribute here and not be seen as a mindless, biased, ideologue which
some have seemed to improperly imply in this thread.

> If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer
> any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what
> was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread.
>
> Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the
> bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to
> vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the
> topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question.
> It goes both ways, Brock.
>

Glenn, I will go back and look. But remember, my interest in this thread
has never been narrowly focused on the Georgia issue, but on some of the
larger issues involved. As you know, I think some of the Democratic
complaints about "suppression" range from the exaggerated to the downright
false. But I am certainly open to validity in some of their complaints.
Because I don't want to shut down their speech, yours, or anyone else's
even when it might be inconvenient to me.

> FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.

See my earlier comments. Your call of course whether to respond.

[Glenn V.]

Don't make things up out of thin air. I don't hate Trump - do you
understand this?

>
> You were the first one coming here and demanding answers. You didn't
> get the answers you wanted.
> >If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer
> >any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what
> >was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread.
> >
> If you are not afraid to answer the question, why don't you answer the
> question?
> >Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the
> >bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to
> >vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the
> >topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question.
> >It goes both ways, Brock.
> >
> I've answered you.

No, you haven't. Go look at my questions again.

> I've pointed out that the voting reforms
> Republicans want are THE SAME PROCEDURES IN PLACE IN SWEDEN.

Again, quit making things up out of thin air. Republicans are nowhere near
wanting our system, as I've explained in detail. Do you understand this?

[Glenn V.]

Because there were plenty of reporting long before election day about huge
numbers of mail in ballots, as the D's had told them to. Nothing strange
at all about this. Trump on the other hand had for months told his base to
vote in person, as you know they listened to him in large numbers. That's
why. But if you have proof of something other than this, resembling voter
fraud, irregularities or anything else fishy - be my guest to bring the
evidence. Sayso's doesn't count.

> > > Relaxing of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being
> > > counted than should have been allowed under the law.
> >
> > > We will never know if adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to
> > > change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules
> > > were bent to help the Democrats.
> > Where did those bent rules occur? To only benefit Democrats?
> Yes.

Prove this. Biased unproven opinions doesn't make voter fraud. Again where
- and what's your evidence?

> > And why did
> > state election officials from both parties certify the results in those
> > states?
> Election officials jobs are to count the votes. They were simply following
> the order of the courts.

No. They do a lot more than count votes. Check it up.

[Glenn V.]

> Glenn I don't care what it has to do with the issue at hand. Nor do I
> care if you answer John. But since he asked, I was wanting to see you
> answer. Why? Because I assume you would be for the censorship? Hardly,
> but by the same token I think silence is allowing him and others room to
> invalidate legitimate things you have to say.
>
> I regard you as one of my best friends in the "virtual" realm and truly
> enjoyed our time together in Dallas in 2016. That won't ever change,
> because I am not a political ideologue. But I *am* a person who values
> rock solid principles that underlie a healthy Democracy, and to me, it's
> just as legitimate a question if shutting down speech one doesn't agree
> with (as some Tech companies have Trump and other non Progressives) isn't
> just as dangerous to a Democracy as trying to make voting (unreasonably)
> tough. Since I am *confident* you agree, I was actually trying to draw
> you out, because I do think some of the harsh tone directed your way is
> based on untenable *assumptions* about your motives in several areas.
>
> You are a Left-thinker, but one of the most honest and principled I have
> ever had the pleasure of dialoging with. Hence, I want you to be able to
> contribute here and not be seen as a mindless, biased, ideologue which
> some have seemed to improperly imply in this thread.

Thank you, Brock. I very much appreciate this.

[John McAdams]

On 20 Mar 2021 00:04:22 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 3:37:54 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2021 01:50:53 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So it was reasonable to ask, since you hate him so much, whether you
>> want him censored.
>
>Don't make things up out of thin air. I don't hate Trump - do you
>understand this?
>

See a post I'm about to put up.

And do you think Twitter and Facebook should have banned him?

>>
>> You were the first one coming here and demanding answers. You didn't
>> get the answers you wanted.
>> >If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer
>> >any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what
>> >was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread.
>> >
>> If you are not afraid to answer the question, why don't you answer the
>> question?
>> >Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the
>> >bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to
>> >vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the
>> >topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question.
>> >It goes both ways, Brock.
>> >
>> I've answered you.
>
>No, you haven't. Go look at my questions again.
>

You didn't ask questions. You just bashed Republicans.

Republicans want Voter ID. Democrats don't.

Sweden has voter ID.

Republicans want to ban mail-in voting. Democrats don't.

Sweden does not allow mail-in voting.

Republicans want to ban vote harvesting. Democrats don't.

Sweden does not allow voter harvesting.

>> I've pointed out that the voting reforms
>> Republicans want are THE SAME PROCEDURES IN PLACE IN SWEDEN.
>
>Again, quit making things up out of thin air. Republicans are nowhere near
>wanting our system, as I've explained in detail. Do you understand this?
>

You explained no such thing.

You huffed and puffed about the evil Republicans, and then were
embarrassed when I pointed how Sweden handles elections.

>> >FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.
>> Then what are those opinions?
>>

Still no answer.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 11 Mar 2021 04:15:51 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:31 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed
>> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't
>> like.
>
>What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter
>anything on this subject. Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave
>out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not
>understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one
>percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts? Trump doesn't give a s**t
>about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars
>to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else.
>

And Glenn won't say whether Facebook and Twitter should have banned
Trump.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Corbett]

The state court in Michigan has ruled their secretary of state violated
the law by unilaterally changing absentee voter rules.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-michigan-sec-state-broke-law-absentee-ballot

I've already pointed out the violation of law in Pennsylvania.

Who does the Constitution empower to determine how a state's electors
should be chosen?

Did the Pennsylvania legislature decide that mail in ballots must be
received by election day to count.

Did the Pennsylvania courts overrule that decision by the legislature?

Does the Constitution grant that power to courts?

[Glenn V.]

That's exactly what I've done. You selecting some things, cutting out
others displays only your dishonesty. Do you understand that this is
transparent and embarrassing on your part?

>
> You huffed and puffed about the evil Republicans, and then were
> embarrassed when I pointed how Sweden handles elections.

Again, quit making things up and attribute your language to me. Do you
understand that this shows your dishonesty? I've never used the word
"evil". Your sinister and purposely false debate style is shameful.

> >> >FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.
> >> Then what are those opinions?
> >>
> Still no answer.

You don't decide what I answer. Neither do you get to decide that I should
accept your change of subject. Do you understand this?

I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling
stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
registered voters?

Do you understand that those are important questions?

>
> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 20 Mar 2021 18:20:24 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 1:24:37 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2021 00:04:22 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> I've answered you.
>> >
>> >No, you haven't. Go look at my questions again.
>> >
>> You didn't ask questions. You just bashed Republicans.
>>
>> Republicans want Voter ID. Democrats don't.
>>
>> Sweden has voter ID.
>>
>> Republicans want to ban mail-in voting. Democrats don't.
>>
>> Sweden does not allow mail-in voting.
>>
>> Republicans want to ban vote harvesting. Democrats don't.
>>
>> Sweden does not allow voter harvesting.
>> >> I've pointed out that the voting reforms
>> >> Republicans want are THE SAME PROCEDURES IN PLACE IN SWEDEN.
>> >
>> >Again, quit making things up out of thin air. Republicans are nowhere near
>> >wanting our system, as I've explained in detail. Do you understand this?
>> >
>> You explained no such thing.
>
>That's exactly what I've done. You selecting some things, cutting out
>others displays only your dishonesty. Do you understand that this is
>transparent and embarrassing on your part?
>

Do you understand that your going completely bonkers when I disagree
with you is transparent and embarrassing on your part?

You have talked about how great voting is in Sweden, IN SPITE OF THE
FACT THAT SWEDEN HAS THE SAME POLICIES REPUBLICANS WANT HERE.

>>
>> You huffed and puffed about the evil Republicans, and then were
>> embarrassed when I pointed how Sweden handles elections.
>
>Again, quit making things up and attribute your language to me. Do you
>understand that this shows your dishonesty? I've never used the word
>"evil". Your sinister and purposely false debate style is shameful.
>

You have indeed portrayed Republicans as evil, trying to "suppress"
the vote.

And you have bragged about how Republicans are headed for the dustbin
of history, for failure to be sufficiently politically correct.

>> >> >FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.
>> >> Then what are those opinions?
>> >>
>> Still no answer.
>
>You don't decide what I answer. Neither do you get to decide that I should
>accept your change of subject. Do you understand this?
>

Yet another evasion.

The question is a simple one: do you approve or disapprove of the
tech companies banning Donald Trump?

You direct hostile "questions" at me, and demand that I answer.

But you won't answer that very simple question.

>I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia
>to help feed voters in line?

It's a form of bribery.

>How is reducing the number of polling
>stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
>registered voters?
>

I would not know how it's motivated without knowing the specifics.

And you don't know either.

>Do you understand that those are important questions?
>
>>

Not nearly as important as knowing whether you approve of the
censorship of Donald Trump.

Kindly give an honest answer.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[BT George]

John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the
details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding
voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the
very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to
identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much
legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts.
So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head on
your take of the motivation behind this. If you answer that, then he will
be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
and other Conservatives.

Brock

[Glenn V.]

On this particular one, I have no (I think) disagreement with you.
Moreover, my point was simply that this doesn't qualify as "voter fraud"
as those votes were perfectly fine, but apparently there was an issue
about the lawfulness of the decision.

[Glenn V.]

> The left and their media acolytes have so demonized the issue of taxes and
> tax cuts and who pays their "fair share" of taxes that it's impossible to
> have an honest conversation about the topic.

The left? To the degree that this is an issue, it certainly goes both
ways.

>
> The power to tax is also the power to control. and destroy The FAIREST tax
> system is also a system where--regardless of tax RATES--all Americans feel
> the system works without unduly favoring one group over another. The way
> to DO this, in my opinion, is to eliminate all deductions in the code and
> flatten the rate. Exempt the first "X" in income from Federal taxation and
> tax everything beyond that at a certain percentage, no deductions.

Yes, well, with some if it, fwiw, again I agree. However, a far bigger
problem in the US democracy is that money is ruling far more of what
happens in politics than voting does. That's the real problem in the US,
in my opinion. Get monies out of politics and then we might actually get
to see what the civilian part of the US really want with you democracy.
And yes, this, again, is certainly applicable to both parties.

>
> Nearly every Republican would go along with something like this. Dems?
> Nah. It's about control with Dems. Doling out tax breaks for starting wind
> farms or buying an electric car or other pet issues is part of why the tax
> code is so complex.
>
> On a related issue regarding the capital gains tax, I remember some years
> ago candidate Obama being confronted with the facts that a LOWER capital
> gains tax cut actually RAISED more money for the treasury because
> investors saw an opportunity to sell the asset being taxed at a lower rate
> and deploying the gains into other money making, entrepreneurial ventures.
> Obama could only stammer that the higher rate was "fairer" even though the
> treasury benefited less, which tells you a little about the mindset of the
> left. Dems would rather punish than raise the money.
>
> Glenn and ajohnstone would rather run with the narrative that tax cuts go
> to the "greedy one-percent" for example. I'll bet Glenn and AJ also
> believe women make 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar a man makes.

I wonder from where all this stuff about attributing me to both this and
that and whatever else, comes from? You should be a little bit careful
with such things... in particular as you know very little about me, my
thoughts and where I stand in various matters. It would be better if all
of us, including me, stayed with the issue at hand, right?

[Glenn V.]

> I absolutely agree with Brock.

Fine, I've answered this one elsewhere, below.

>
> And Glenn seems to be unaware that our two major US parties have somewhat
> "flipped" recently. I'll let Glenn research on his own, but IN GENERAL the
> Democratic party is supported by upper income elites and the managerial
> class, and the Republican party is IN GENERAL supported by small business
> owners and the working class.

Right. Well, I have researched this quite extensively over the years. I
was perhaps a bit unclear, agreed.

What I meant to say was that the "elites" as defined by most people in the
US, are more the well educated class, upper income class, yes sure, but
also those financial elites that have nothing whatsoever in common with
the working classes, but some of which now have made the true working
class in America, believe they do. The true fact is the opposite, all of
the financial elites are actually doing whatever they can to hold back the
working class. But that's different, and long story.

Also, Trump has, in recent years, been the foremost and most successful
voice to make this working class believe otherwise. His "working class
support" is the single biggest charade, yes fraud if you will, that I've
ever - ever - seen in US politics. Purported through mostly his racial
stands, no doubt. That's where he knew he would get their support - and
that he did, and still does, probably.

> Today's liberals are the purveyors of the
> bigoted beliefs based off of begged questions that comprises critical race
> theory and today's liberals are absolutely fine with conservative speech
> being banned and rigging elections by loosening the safeguards that
> protect each vote.

Critical race theory? Do you mind expand a little on this?

> Glenn, those tax cuts you CLAIM go to the upper 1%
> (I'll allow this claim to go unchallenged) would probably benefit
> Democrats more than Republicans.

Not a chance. Everything I know as a economist tells me otherwise.

And the tax cuts, yes I did say that 90% got nothing, and that what the
statistics show.

> The myth of the Mr. Moneybags Monopoly
> character with a monocle being a Republican is just that; a myth.
> America's "Greedy One-Percenters" skew Democrat and oftentimes make a
> six-figure income working for the government or in an industry that
> benefits from being connected to government contracts and largesse.

You should be a bit more careful than assuming that I am in some way
giving the D's a free ride on every issue. I don't.

>
> There is something earth shattering going on in this country right now.
> It's no hyperbole to say we are in a "Cold" Civil War. Republicans want
> freedom, and Democrats want control. Let's hope the cold war doesn't turn
> hot.

In my, yes it is earth shattering. But the reason not those you refer to.
The Republicans (as defined by the GOP) what are they, as of today.
Platform, politics, etc. They are simply not recognizable - not even to
quite a large chuck of ex-GOP's.

Because of the racism, because of their questionable support for US
democracy, as we've all witnessed lately. Instead we see complete no
nothing imbeciles getting elected to Congress, very dangerous people who
the GOP leaders don't dare touch, but instead goes down to Mar a Lago to
get instructions. The GOP is in some sort of shambles and GOD only knows
how that will end.

>
> So, Glenn, answer John's question please. Let's hear where you stand on
> free speech. If we do not allow all political speech--whether you think it
> dangerous or not--we're doomed. Are you okay with Big Tech censoring Trump
> and other Republicans and other thoughts and ideas that Big Tech feels is
> dangerous?

We'll see about that.

[Bud]

What does eating have to do with voting?

Since food cost money you are giving people compensation for voting.

> How is reducing the number of polling
> stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and
> registered voters?

You haven`t shown it hurts them.

[John McAdams]

On 20 Mar 2021 22:26:20 -0000, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>

Do you even know that is true?

And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low
in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after
the number is reduced?

>So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head
>on your take of the motivation behind this.

Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know
what the motivation is, if it is true.

Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump
called white supremacists "good people."

And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official.

And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being
bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher.

>If you answer that, then he will
>be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump
>and other Conservatives.
>

Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim
is true.

But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned.

Why do you think he won't answer?

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 6:26:55 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote:
> > I absolutely agree with Brock.
> Fine, I've answered this one elsewhere, below.
> >
> > And Glenn seems to be unaware that our two major US parties have somewhat
> > "flipped" recently. I'll let Glenn research on his own, but IN GENERAL the
> > Democratic party is supported by upper income elites and the managerial
> > class, and the Republican party is IN GENERAL supported by small business
> > owners and the working class.
> Right. Well, I have researched this quite extensively over the years. I
> was perhaps a bit unclear, agreed.
>
> What I meant to say was that the "elites" as defined by most people in the
> US, are more the well educated class, upper income class, yes sure, but
> also those financial elites that have nothing whatsoever in common with
> the working classes, but some of which now have made the true working
> class in America, believe they do. The true fact is the opposite, all of
> the financial elites are actually doing whatever they can to hold back the
> working class. But that's different, and long story.
>
> Also, Trump has, in recent years, been the foremost and most successful
> voice to make this working class believe otherwise. His "working class
> support" is the single biggest charade, yes fraud if you will, that I've
> ever - ever - seen in US politics.

Yes, he fooled people into thinking he was going to put American
interests first by actually putting American interests first.

Make American Great Again wasn`t a slogan, it was a philosophy. It is ok
if foreigners don`t get it.

> Purported through mostly his racial
> stands, no doubt.

Such as?

> That's where he knew he would get their support - and
> that he did, and still does, probably.

People have been calling Trump a racist, but when I ask them for
specifics they have nothing. Let`s see what you have.

If you want to see someone who said truly racist things you need to look
at Biden.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/21/10-examples-of-joe-bidens-history-of-racially-charged-conduct-and-comments/