I think it's over, come next Tuesday (11/24).

[Chomsky]

I've long considered Trump a kind of Constitutional stress test. I actually think a few years from now we'll realize we've passed that test.

I agree! Absolutely!

Our Founders & Framers did a great job. We've also learned a lot about norms & the powers of the Presidency, too.

 

[Xilnik]

Yes, candidate challenges vote count that shows him losing. Absolutely nothing like what's going on today.

One state, a few hundred votes. Six states, hundreds of thousands of votes. Yeah, sure, same thing.

 

[Antiwar]

I agree! Absolutely!

Our Founders & Framers did a great job. We've also learned a lot about norms & the powers of the Presidency, too.

You're a Chomsky fan?!

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes, candidate challenges vote count that shows him losing. Absolutely nothing like what's going on today.

One state where it was within a few hundred votes that by itself could have swung the election. As you said, absolutely nothing like what is going on today.

 

[Chomsky]

You're a Chomsky fan?!

Ya' think my nick gave it away?

Yeah, I'm good with him. But we part ways enough, for instance on the place & efficacy the Fourth Estate.

 

[Antiwar]

Ya' think my nick gave it away?

Yeah, I'm good with him. But we part ways enough, for instance on the place & efficacy the Fourth Estate.

Is Chomsky a fan of the founders and the framers?

 

[Chomsky]

Is Chomsky a fan of the founders and the framers?

I haven't seen or followed him commenting much on the framers. The stuff I've seen from him is usually contemporaneous, though he will often provide historical context.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Well, there's nothing much they can do. The important thing is the ressults have been officially certified. So now, it's pretty much impossible to dispute them.

As to the possibility of an audit:



So it seems, so much for that.

And a recount, should Trump want one, will do nothing.

I've always found the signature match to be problematic in a system that tracks them over time, since we know people's signatures change throughout their life. A few weeks ago I saw my signature on a document from when I was in high school and my current one looks very different. This becomes problematic with people who don't vote regularly and there are variations in their signature from the last time they voted and what they are using now.

 

[Antiwar]

I haven't seen or followed him commenting much on the framers. The stuff I've seen from him is usually contemporaneous, though he will often provide historical context.

I'm not much of a reader. But I listen to him when he's on the radio, and I don't think he's a fan of the founders and the framers. He's a left-libertarian near-anarchist, ideally, and a progressive, pragmatically.

I don't know the inner thoughts of the founders and the framers, but I say they were elitists that grabbed power and most of their pitch was a phony sales job.

Here's a bit about their dislike of democracy:

Notion of Elite Guardian Class Dates Back to Founding of US

The Noam Chomsky Website.

chomsky.info

Expand to see bolded text:

The founding fathers were much concerned about the hazards of democracy. In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, the main framer, James Madison, warned of these hazards. Naturally taking England as his model, he observed that “in England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place,” undermining the right to property. To ward off such injustice, “our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation,” arranging voting patterns and checks and balances so as “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” a prime task of decent government.

More:

Scholarship generally agrees that “the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period,” delivering power to a “better sort” of people and excluding “those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power.”

 

[Chomsky]

I've always found the signature match to be problematic in a system that tracks them over time, since we know people's signatures change throughout their life. A few weeks ago I saw my signature on a document from when I was in high school and my current one looks very different. This becomes problematic with people who don't vote regularly and there are variations in their signature from the last time they voted and what they are using now.

Yeah, agreed. Signature matching is bullshit, IMO. What retiree once-every-two-years voulunteer election judge is a qualified handwriting expert? Very few, I suspect.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm not much of a reader. But I listen to him when he's on the radio, and I don't think he's a fan of the founders and the framers. He's a left-libertarian near-anarchist, ideally, and a progressive, pragmatically.

I don't know the inner thoughts of the founders and the framers, but I say they were elitists that grabbed power and most of their pitch was a phony sales job.

Here's a bit about their dislike of democracy:

Notion of Elite Guardian Class Dates Back to Founding of US

The Noam Chomsky Website.

chomsky.info

Chomsky, IMO, is far more enjoyable read - than listened to. His print can be pretty exciting in ideas and recounts, whereas I find his speech boring monotone. Great ideas, lousy oratory delivery.

As to or founders, they were the men of their times, which is to say pretty bad in some ways by the standard of our times. In addition, they made a lot of bad compromises to get the Constitution passed. But what I was referring to earlier, was that they were ingenious in some facets of the way they set-up the government. However some things, like the Electoral College, are now hideous (IMO).

Thanks for the link!

 

[Antiwar]

Chomsky, IMO, is far more enjoyable read - than listened to. His print can be pretty exciting in ideas and recounts, whereas I find his speech boring monotone. Great ideas, lousy oratory delivery.

As to or founders, they were the men of their times, which is to say pretty bad in some ways by the standard of our times. In addition, they made a lot of bad compromises to get the Constitution passed. But what I was referring to earlier, was that they were ingenious in some facets of the way they set-up the government. However some things, like the Electoral College, are now hideous (IMO).

Thanks for the link!

I don't buy the 'men of their time" argument/excuse. People knew slavery was wrong- that's not something modern or mysterious.

Yeah, his delivery is mellow. Chris Hedges delivers.

The Electoral College should've been abolished when slavery was abolished.

 

[Serenity]

Hope so. Then our forum can look a little less like Alex Jones lives here.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't buy the 'men of their time" argument/excuse. People knew slavery was wrong- that's not something modern or mysterious.

Yeah, his delivery is mellow. Chris Hedges delivers.

The Electoral College should've been abolished when slavery was abolished.

Well, agreed.

"Men of their time" only partially covers it. They were the landowners, monied, and power brokers. And yeah, they feared pure democracy. But at the same time, a lot of those compromises were the only way they could get the 13, particularly the South, to sign on.

They consolidated power with the states, essentially. Remember, they had the state legislatures pick their senators, not the citizens. And ditto for their instating an Electoral College, that the state legislatures determine. In fact, the Senate was considered a 'stopper' for the People's House. I think it's fair to say they feared the common man having an unencumbered vote.

 

[Antiwar]

Well, agreed.

"Men of their time" only partially covers it. They were the landowners, monied, and power brokers. And yeah, they feared pure democracy. But at the same time, a lot of those compromises were the only way they could get the 13, particularly the South, to sign on.

They consolidated power with the states, essentially. Remember, they had the state legislatures pick their senators, not the citizens. And ditto for their instating an Electoral College. In fat, the Senate was considered a 'stopper' for the People's House. I think it's fair to say they feared the common man having an unencumbered vote.

Pure democracy only exists in simple decisions between smaller numbers of people.

They feared representative democracy- they didn't want The People to have power, just a semblance of choice. Hence, why I say the founders and framers sold a phony bill of goods. But, they only had to sell it to the other elites that actually had a vote on ratifying the Constitution. And maybe they had to dress it up a bit more to keep The Rabble from tearing their wigs off. And maybe they knew the sales job would help keep elitists in power for the long run because some of The People would believe their BS.

 

[Chomsky]

Pure democracy only exists in simple decisions between smaller numbers of people.

They feared representative democracy- they didn't want The People to have power, just a semblance of choice. Hence, why I say the founders and framers sold a phony bill of goods. But, they only had to sell it to the other elites that actually had a vote on ratifying the Constitution. And maybe they had to dress it up a bit more to keep The Rabble from tearing their wigs off. And maybe they knew the sales job would help keep elitists in power for the long run because some of The People would believe their BS.

I think that's a fair assessment. And that ethos filtered down to the state governments, as can be seen by the original structure of the legislatures voting for the Senate.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Well, agreed.

"Men of their time" only partially covers it. They were the landowners, monied, and power brokers. And yeah, they feared pure democracy. But at the same time, a lot of those compromises were the only way they could get the 13, particularly the South, to sign on.

They consolidated power with the states, essentially. Remember, they had the state legislatures pick their senators, not the citizens. And ditto for their instating an Electoral College, that the state legislatures determine. In fact, the Senate was considered a 'stopper' for the People's House. I think it's fair to say they feared the common man having an unencumbered vote.

They clearly feared mob rule. They had seen too much of that in the past. The days of pitch forks, torches, and the mob deciding justice was a real fear. Democracy sounds great until they are dragging you out of your house and burning you for being a witch. It happened. To say it cannot happen today would only show how little you know about people.

Chomsky looks like I asked the right person to find out how this was going to turn out. This election sure opened my eyes about the lengths both parties will go to rig an election. The leaders in my town moved the election cites at the last minute. I didn't think nothing of it until all the people who showed up late were complaining they did not know where to vote. Scary. Plus they removed us from a large open air garage to a tiny building where social distancing was impossible. Guess which party all the people were who couldn't figure out where to vote belonged to? Trump told them not to mail in but show up in person then the democrats move the election cite. Both parties playing some real underhanded tricks on the people. Unbelievable.

I guess now it is the republican's turn to create havoc and chaos. Here we go again. The only real losers will be the people.

Oh congratulations on Biden winning. It is time to put a stop to this nonsense.

 

[btthegreat]

Why?

Well, after taking a look at the electoral map and the certification dates for the six pertinent swing states ....

Election results certification dates, 2020

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

270toWin - 2024 Presidential Election Interactive Map

Create your own forecast for the 2024 presidential election

www.270towin.com

... it looks to me GA certed yesterday (Fri - 20th), and MI & PA cert Monday (23rd).

That leaves only the remaining low-count swing states of AZ, WI, and NV left to cert - with a total of only 28 electoral votes between them. With Biden at 306 EC, he will be certed or non-disputed at over 270 come Monday, even without those 28 remaining votes. Actually, he will be at 278. So to me, it seems the whole shebang is over at the start of the coming week.

Is my case legit?

Its good enough for thinking people but the ones with a deficit , they will still be posting that there is still a chance..

 

[Antiwar]

They clearly feared mob rule. They had seen too much of that in the past. The days of pitch forks, torches, and the mob deciding justice was a real fear. Democracy sounds great until they are dragging you out of your house and burning you for being a witch. It happened. To say it cannot happen today would only show how little you know about people.

What you're describing is vigilante "justice," such as lynchings, not pure democracy.

I heard a scholar talk about how some pre-America Americans wouldn't put up with elitists- basically smack them around in the streets.

Those two things (paragraphs) might seem the same, but they're not.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

What you're describing is vigilante "justice," such as lynchings, not pure democracy.

I heard a scholar talk about how some pre-America Americans wouldn't put up with elitists- basically smack them around in the streets.

Those two things (paragraphs) might seem the same, but they're not.

Pure democracy is 51% of the people voting away the rights of the other 49%. Call it what you want.

 

[Antiwar]

Pure democracy is 51% of the people voting away the rights of the other 49%. Call it what you want.

A pure democracy would mean there would be no representatives. None. People would vote on everything.

In a (supposed) constitutional republic with strong democratic functions (voting and representation), the majority couldn't vote away the minority's rights- the constitution (and other things) would protect those rights.

 

[Mycroft]

Why?

Well, after taking a look at the electoral map and the certification dates for the six pertinent swing states ....

Election results certification dates, 2020

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

270toWin - 2024 Presidential Election Interactive Map

Create your own forecast for the 2024 presidential election

www.270towin.com

... it looks to me GA certed yesterday (Fri - 20th), and MI & PA cert Monday (23rd).

That leaves only the remaining low-count swing states of AZ, WI, and NV left to cert - with a total of only 28 electoral votes between them. With Biden at 306 EC, he will be certed or non-disputed at over 270 come Monday, even without those 28 remaining votes. Actually, he will be at 278. So to me, it seems the whole shebang is over at the start of the coming week.

Is my case legit?

Courts can order any certification to be removed.

Having said that, it would certainly be easier to delay certification, instead, while the cases are prepared, filed and resolved.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: FIRST, we needed to file suits and recounts to STOP final certification inaccurate false results! SECOND, we will present testimonial and other evidence IN COURT to show how this election was STOLEN!

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

IDK but I sure hope so!

You sound .....skeptical...

 

[skeptic llc]

You sound .....skeptical...

Or on this one, maybe (I hope) paranoid. I think Trump's authoritarian leanings are so clear, and the consequences if he succeeds so terrible, that I won't take a breath until he is truly out, and I won't rest easy until he's still out in 2025. He's the greatest threat to American society as we know it that I am aware of in almost a century.

 

[NatMorton]

One state, a few hundred votes. Six states, hundreds of thousands of votes. Yeah, sure, same thing.

The size of the gap does not give Trump fewer rights than Gore when it comes to pursuing recounts. (Or than Stacey Abrams, for that matter.)