Question for John McAdams

525 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn V.

unread,
Feb 21, 2021, 6:48:45 PMFeb 21
to
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

unread,
Feb 21, 2021, 7:19:35 PMFeb 21
to
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.

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 1:03:35 PMFeb 23
to
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

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 8:34:21 PMFeb 23
to
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

unread,
Feb 23, 2021, 8:44:40 PMFeb 23
to
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.

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 5:54:04 AMFeb 24
to
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

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 6:27:28 AMFeb 24
to
>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

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 9:18:07 PMFeb 24
to
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

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 9:18:10 PMFeb 24
to
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

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 10:03:02 PMFeb 24
to
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

unread,
Feb 24, 2021, 10:03:07 PMFeb 24
to
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.

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:13:30 PMFeb 25
to
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.

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 9:13:35 PMFeb 25
to
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

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 10:18:33 PMFeb 25
to
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

unread,
Feb 25, 2021, 10:22:37 PMFeb 25
to
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.

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 5:10:20 PMFeb 26
to
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

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 5:14:59 PMFeb 26
to
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

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:07 PMFeb 26
to
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.

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:41 PMFeb 26
to
Thanks, Brock.

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

x

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:29:45 PMFeb 26
to
>>> "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

unread,
Feb 26, 2021, 8:47:56 PMFeb 26
to
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

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 9:01:42 AMFeb 27
to
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.

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 7:54:48 PMMar 1
to
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

unread,
Mar 1, 2021, 10:48:13 PMMar 1
to
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.

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 8:36:54 AMMar 2
to
But of course you. Thanks for confirming my reasoning here. Great.

John McAdams

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 8:53:14 AMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 8:53:17 AMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 4:13:42 PMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 7:01:22 PMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 7:01:25 PMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 7:01:56 PMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 7:01:59 PMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 2, 2021, 11:42:03 PMMar 2
to
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

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 12:12:02 AMMar 3
to

Glenn V.

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 12:12:07 AMMar 3
to
“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

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 9:15:07 AMMar 3
to
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

unread,
Mar 3, 2021, 9:18:12 PMMar 3
to
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.

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 5:21:43 PMMar 10
to
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

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 8:48:21 PMMar 10
to
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

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 8:48:31 PMMar 10
to
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.

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 11:15:53 PMMar 10
to
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.

unread,
Mar 10, 2021, 11:15:56 PMMar 10
to
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

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 12:46:21 PMMar 11
to
> 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

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 12:46:24 PMMar 11
to
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

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 7:10:34 PMMar 11
to
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

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 7:10:37 PMMar 11
to
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

unread,
Mar 11, 2021, 10:28:21 PMMar 11
to
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

unread,
Mar 12, 2021, 8:01:56 AMMar 12
to
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

unread,
Mar 12, 2021, 8:06:50 AMMar 12
to
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

unread,
Mar 12, 2021, 3:20:49 PMMar 12
to
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

unread,
Mar 12, 2021, 3:20:52 PMMar 12
to
Perhaps Glenn is one of those, "Free speech for me, but not for me,"
types.

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

ajohnstone

unread,
Mar 13, 2021, 8:19:14 AMMar 13
to

>>>> 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

unread,
Mar 13, 2021, 2:51:18 PMMar 13
to
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

unread,
Mar 13, 2021, 2:51:24 PMMar 13