Now that the election has come and gone, I think the way forward for the Republicans is clear. The one candidate that Trump mocked and threatened is the candidate who dominated his opponents in his re-election. The election is HIS state was the Red Wave. As for the candidates Trump supported and rallied for ? Most of them seriously underperformed and lost. Look who won the Senate in Pennsylvania. Any decent, half-way normal Republican could have won that one. Anyone……except the one candidate Trump gave them.
Blogroll
Recent Comments
- abortion
- academia
- activism
- antifa
- atheism
- atheist activism
- atheist news
- atheist wars
- authoritarianism
- Balance
- child abuse
- Christianity
- christophobia
- climate change
- closed-mindedness
- covid
- crackpots
- critical race theory
- Culture
- education
- evidence
- Evil
- Evolution
- Faith
- Fake Hate
- free will
- Friendly Atheist
- gender
- Gnutopia
- God
- Hate
- Hypocrisy
- Intolerance
- Jerry Coyne
- Lawrence Krauss
- LGBT
- Madalyn Murray O'Hair
- March for Science
- media
- militant atheism
- morality
- Mytherism
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
- New Atheism
- pedophiles
- Peter Boghossian
- Poe
- Politics
- post-modernism
- propaganda
- pz myers
- racism
- reason
- Religion
- Resurrection
- Richard Carrier
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- satanism
- Science
- Scientism
- Secularism
- secular values
- sex
- Social Justice
- social justice atheism
- Society
- Steven Pinker
- teachers
- the postchristian world
- trans ideology
- Twitterverse
- Victor Stenger
- violence
- woke
Pages
Archives
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- June 2011
- March 2011
- April 2010
- March 2010
- July 2009
- June 2009
Blogroll
Meta
- Follow Shadow To Light on WordPress.com
Shadow To Light 
I cannot believe Fetterman won. The guy is literally incapable of human conversation. I realise he’s just going to be a puppet for whoever is really in control (if they don’t simply replace him with someone else) but how can anyone vote for a man in his condition? It’s staggering just how tribal US politics has become.
I fully expect a Democratic victory in 2024 because of Trump. He will guarantee huge opposition turnout if he wins the Republican primary and will divide his own base attacking DeSantis, and if he loses the primary he will run third party and siphon votes away from DeSantis.
I appreciate his keeping Hillary out of office, but I really wish he would go away.
Agree 100%. We also know what’s coming – Trump will use the 2022 Red Mirage as proof that 2020 was fixed against him.
The election irregularities were rampant.
It was no mirage it was the communist takeover of America.
The judges are corrupt as are all democrats.
Many Republicans are complicit.
I can only assume you are too busy praying to read anything reporting the massive cheating that happened.
Michael, please don’t let your dislike of Trump blind you — the 2020 election *was* stolen, many of the 2022 elections *were* stolen, and the Dems fully intend to steal 2024.
==It’s staggering just how tribal US politics has become.==
Tribe #1: the voters;
Tribe #2: the vote-counters.
So if the elections will always be stolen, there is no reason to vote for the GOP, right?
I think we have a mixed bag of election “fortification” and disaffection, depending on locality. The Trump guy won in Ohio, for example. Seems to me that the Democrat strongholds now have the tools to ensure their control is permanent. Feckless Republicans who have been supporting the exact same policies as Democrats for generations now give no motivation for people to bother voting for them, even in these worst of times.
From an anti-democratic standpoint, this is probably close to the ideal outcome. More of the same just about everywhere, which only leads down the road to collapse. America as an entity is going to hit the wall, and we can only hope this will lead to a return to localism as national power wanes.
==So if the elections will always be stolen, there is no reason to vote for the GOP, right?==
There has never been a reason to vote for RINOs. But, the alternative to trying to get real patriots elected is horrible to contemplate.
The people who control the Democratic Party (and the RINOs) seek to destroy America. Whether they destroy America via Democratic politicians, or whether they destroy America via civil war, it’s all the same to then.
Here is just one example of the “election irregularities” BlueCat57 references:
“Judge Rejects RNC Effort to Extend Voting Hours in Maricopa County, Arizona After Problems with Tabulators Lead to Long Lines”
So, *actual* voters — most of whom were going to vote for the GOP candidates — were not allowed to vote … but (as we see all across the country), mail-in “ballots” which arrive *days* after the election, and which may not even verifiable as actual votes validly cast in the proper time-frame, will be counted if necessary to seal the Dem “win”.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/judge-rejects-rnc-effort-extend-voting-hours-maricopa-county-arizona-problems-tabulators-lead-long-lines/
Out of curiosity, Michael, what makes you think that there isn’t large scale fraud going on? Do you think the Democrats are a noble group who would not stoop to such levels? As someone who is interested in security, I’ve found these last two elections quite educational in terms of new ways to exploit the system. I think American elections were always a bit insecure (relative to Australian elections), but the COVID nonsense and associated opportunity to promote mailed ballots radically increased the vulnerabilities. I can see that people have been brainstorming additional exploits in the last two years. It’s probably a lot more reliable and cost effective than actual campaigning!
Out of curiosity, Michael, what makes you think that there isn’t large scale fraud going on?
First, I just don’t see the evidence. Anytime someone offers up evidence, it’s anecdotal and easily falls under the umbrella of confirmation bias. Tens of millions of people arte voting, so yes, you’ll be able to find pockets of irregularities.
Second, if the Democrats have figured out to get away with large scale fraud, why are the settling with the status quo which maintains a weak president? Why not deliver a 60 seat majority in the Senate and a larger majority in the House?
Third, there is no need to invoke large scale fraud. If Republicans want to sit out early voting and instead go out and cast the vote, they cede early (more convenient) voting to the Dems. What’s more, I’m not sure Trump supporters fully appreciate just how much Trump is hated by the majority of Americans. There is a reason Dems keep trying to make Trump the issue.
Let me give you some voting numbers.
In Georgia, Kemp won the governor race 54% to 46%. Yet the same voters only gave Walker (the Trump supported candidate) 48% to Warnock’s 49%. Kemp got 2.1 million votes, Walker got 1.9 million. So 200,000 people were willing to vote for a GOP governor, but not the GOP Senate candidate.
Or consider Ohio. The governor there was DeWine, who won 62% to 38%. Trumpsters hate DeWine. Go to the Senate. Ohio has gone Red over the last decade, so the Trump-supported Senate candidate did win. But only with 53% of the vote. Get this. 2.5 millon voted for DeWine, but only 2.15 voted for Vance. That’s 350,000 people who voted for the GOP governor, but couldn’t back the Trump-supported Senate candidate.
Even Vance senses Trump is an anchor.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jd-vance-didnt-mention-trump-ohio-senate-victory-speech-despite-endorsement
==Or consider Ohio. [flawed analysis that can’t seem to escape TDS]==
Or, to put it another way, a lot of Democratic voters in Democratic strongholds still remember what it was like last time this State had a Democratic governor, and so voted for the semi-Dem RINO DeWine.
Franklin Co (Columbus) == Whaley +13; Ryan +32
Cuyahoga Co (Cleveland) == Whaley +14; Ryan +35
Hamilton CO (Cincinnati) == DeWine +3; Ryan +15
Summit Co (Akron) == DeWine +7; Ryan +13
Montgomery Co (Dayton) == DeWine +20; Ryan +0.2
Stark Co (Canton) == DeWine +36; Vance +16
==Even Vance senses Trump is an anchor.==
So, I was right to be wary of him. I voted *against* him in the primary; I can’t explain *why* I didn’t/don’t trust him, but I don’t.
Goodness! What is the world coming to when “Trumpster” “cultists” don’t blindly follow the endorsements of the “cult” leader?
==Trumpsters hate DeWine.==
This “Trumpster” despises DeWine (and refused to vote for him in 2022) because he *behaved* like a Dem during the plandemic.
This is just one small example —
Early on, when most people were still falling for the panic porn — but not so early that many people, including me, had seen it for what it was — and after DeWine had unlawfully locked-down the State and imposed quarantines of “infected” people, it was publicly reported that DeWine had tested (*) positive. So, what do you think he did? Do you *actually* think he followed the orders he had issued for everyone else, and went into a two-week quarantine? Pshaw! He simply had himself re-“tested” until the “test” came back negative.
(*) using that infamous “test” that can’t actually detect Covid-19[84]
Anytime someone offers up evidence, it’s anecdotal and easily falls under the umbrella of confirmation bias.
Have you seen 2000 Mules? If not, what actual efforts have you taken to seek out evidence? Anecdotal evidence is the only kind you’re likely to hear if you’re not actively seeking it. Assuming you’ve seen it, would you describe the evidence it offers as anecdotal? If so, what does it take for evidence to qualify as not-anecdotal?
Second, if the Democrats have figured out to get away with large scale fraud, why are the settling with the status quo which maintains a weak president?
Clearly they want a weak president. They pushed Joe through to run against Trump. Why? Is Joe popular? Strong? Likeable? You’re thinking about the whole arrangement in terms of the way it’s supposed to happen, but when a system is being subverted, that level of analysis will simply blind you to the subversion. Have you ever pondered the question, “why would they promote a weak president?” If not, then you’ve never thought outside the box on this issue, and inside-the-box thinking on the part of others is the cheat’s greatest ally: it creates wonderfully exploitable blind-spots.
Why not deliver a 60 seat majority in the Senate and a larger majority in the House?
If they had achieved that, would you suspect that they were cheating? If the answer is yes, then they were wise to cheat only enough to retain the most easily-held reins of power (where the number of points of control is the least). If the answer is no, then they’ll probably figure that out eventually and work their way up to it.
The most interesting open question at this point is how much of the House swing they will chip away through extended counting of ballots in the coming weeks. I think it’s clear that they will maintain the Senate. If they estimate that they can retain their House majority without creating undue suspicion, they will probably do so. They’ll only cheat enough to maintain a slender margin: the cost/benefits of pushing further and harder than that don’t add up. Alternatively, they might suffer the setback for now if they figure their chances are better in the next election. After all, the elections themselves are just a distraction at this point: a Machiavellian opponent isn’t trying to win elections, he’s trying to establish total control over the electoral process so that the elections don’t matter.
==What’s more, I’m not sure Trump supporters fully appreciate just how much Trump is hated by the majority of Americans. …
Let me give you some voting numbers.==
According to this piece from Joe Hoft at ‘Gateway Pundit’, as of 4:30 pm on November 9, of the candidates Trump backed, so far 174 won their races and 9 lost.
Which majority is that, exactly, which hates Trump?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/trump-backed-174-winning-candidates-far-gop-elites-rinos-slam-president-trump-anyways
==Clearly they want a weak president. They pushed Joe through to run against Trump. Why?==
My theory has been, and continues to be, that they plan to prop Brandon up until January 21, 2023, and then, as per the 25th Amendment, go for 10 years of Kamala Sutra.
No, I have not seen 2000 Mules so I admit the evidence could be out there and I have not seen it.
As for my second point, I’m just not convinced by your response. Biden was pushed because he was considered to be the most likely to win a general election. He ran as a moderate and was the only white, male, heterosexual candidate. Probably had polling data showing Biden had best chance of beating Trump. By running someone like Biden, and keeping him hidden away in a basement, they could make the 2020 election all about Trump, a man whose favorability ratings never got above 50%. Trump lovers were already going to vote, so they needed to bring out the Trump Haters.
As for being weak, I don’t think they expected him to be so weak. But that’s just a function of his bungling of Afghanistan and the economy going bad (which he contributed to).
As for keeping a razor thin majority so as to not make it so obvious, why bother? Democrats salivate for Power, not playing and winning 3D chess. If they have the ability to do widespread cheating, just elect 60 Senators and a supermajority in the House. Run far Left candidates instead of those that run as moderates. Add in a Hug0 Chavez-type president. Get elected, pack the Supreme Court, make Puerto Rico and DC the 51st and 52nd state. Begin the process of turning the USA into Venezuela once and for all.
What is the GOP going to do? Complain about cheating on Fox news and talk radio? Have their presidential candidate complain about cheating? They already do all this.
If the Dems had the power you guys think they have, they wouldn’t be playing around with these “divided country” elections. They have too much of a hard on for Power and the Need to Transform America.
Also, when you write things like , “They’ll only cheat enough to maintain a slender margin: the cost/benefits of pushing further and harder than that don’t add up,” you are assuming the Dems are WAY smarter and way more disciplined than they are (IMO). I would say that anytime you have a theory that invokes a type of superhuman genius playing of mental chess in your opponents, you are invoking a puppet master that is highly unlikely to exist. Humans are dumb and humans with power have very little self-control. Mike’s Rule – If your thesis depends on “them” being Super Clever Manipulators who are Five Steps ahead of us, well, I don’t buy it.
Our Host, in future: ==What’s more, I’m not sure [DeSantis] supporters fully appreciate just how much [DeSantis] is hated by the majority of Americans.==
^ And that will be even as DeSantis is drawing Trump-sized crowds to his events and the Dems are continuing to draw Biden-sized crowds.
Isn’t it *odd* that a man allegedly hated passionately by the majority of Americans continues to draw massive crowds — even in the strongholds of the opposing party? Meanwhile, Biden — who got more “votes” than Obama — sometimes even draws scores of supporters. But then, these days, Obama himself doesn’t really draw massive crowds.
No, I have not seen 2000 Mules so I admit the evidence could be out there and I have not seen it.
It may be a worthwhile investment of your time just to expose you to an example of how systematic election fraud works. At the moment, your entire model seems to be firmly rooted in your own imagination about how things work, and that’s frankly a bit too captivated by the official story of how things are supposed to work.
Back in 2016, when I was utterly disdainful of American politics, I thought it would make little difference whether Hillary or Trump won the election because the office of president doesn’t actually have many formal powers associated with it. That’s my own recent example of having a thought process too captivated by the official story, leaving me detached from reality. My disdain for politics was interrupted when all the Antifa rioting followed shortly afterwards, much footage of which was available on YouTube. This struck me as highly anomalous, and when reality conflicts with my model of reality like that, it draws my attention. I spent a lot of time seeking answers and figuring out where my model was out of line with the real world—a lonely journey, sadly. That model is now significantly less superficial and naive than it was, but I’m still fairly sensitive to the need for further adjustment.
Democrats salivate for Power, not playing and winning 3D chess. If they have the ability to do widespread cheating, just elect 60 Senators and a supermajority in the House.
That’s not how cheating works. Cheating works by first eliminating the security measures which make cheating hard, like holding elections on a single day, voting in person, using physical ballots, and counting the ballots under scrutiny on the same day. They constantly promote removal of these features. Voter ID is racist! Voting in person is racist! The Republicans are engaging in voter suppression with all these rules! Once the rules are removed, each one represents a possible margin of fraud. How many mail-in ballots can we harvest and post? Can we import ballots into areas which need an edge? Can we count votes in the middle of the night without scrutiny? In this election, they seem to have used a trick of deploying broken machinery to the red areas. Sorry, the machines are broken and not reading the Republican votes! Sorry, we ran out of ballot paper! You can put a ballot in the secure box, and it will be counted later (unless we manage to lose the box first). This isn’t genius-level stuff: it just takes a certain Machiavellian prioritisation of winning over ethics.
So let’s put it this way: if the Democrats are as power-mad as you say, then don’t you think they’d take every unscrupulous opportunity to cheat and tip the scales their way? Why would you need any evidence of fraud? It should be a thing that you automatically expect to the maximum extent possible, and you should automatically think of any “convenience” in voting as exactly the kind of exploitable loophole they will abuse. That’s what I think is going on. They now put more research into election fraud and less into attracting votes because they already have a captive base of people who will vote blue no matter who, and election security is so lax that it’s much easier to cheat your way past the 50% mark than it is to do the same by attracting votes.
The transformation into a Banana Republic that you speak of is happening, however. It’s just a long, slow march rather than a revolution. Enjoy your new IRS agents, by the way. They aren’t there to collect revenue—beware of that mental captivation to the official story! No, they exist to selectively persecute political enemies, same as every other agency and regulatory body in a Democrat-ruled world.
According to the ‘Cook Political Report’, as of 2022/11/09 (and as of this posting at 9:30 pm 2022/11/10), nationwide, there were 44,890,901 votes cast for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives (or, 46.3% of all such votes), and 50,703,524 votes cast for Republican candidates for the House of Representatives (or, 52.2% of all such votes).
Perhaps the expectations/fears of a “red wave” were in part based on the unbounded ignorance of (leftist) media persons. In this case, forgetting that each district race is a distinct and separate election from all other districts.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house-charts/national-house-vote-tracker/2022
Michael, do you even acknowledge that the Democrats stole 1960 presidential election? And, if you do acknowledge it, do you understand that it didn’t require them to cheat *everywhere*?
TFBW: “Out of curiosity, Michael, what makes you think that there isn’t large scale fraud going on?”
Michael: “First, I just don’t see the evidence. Anytime someone offers up evidence, it’s anecdotal and easily falls under the umbrella of confirmation bias”
TFBW: “Have you seen 2000 Mules? If not, what actual efforts have you taken to seek out evidence? Anecdotal evidence is the only kind you’re likely to hear if you’re not actively seeking it. Assuming you’ve seen it, would you describe the evidence it offers as anecdotal? If so, what does it take for evidence to qualify as not-anecdotal?”
OR, to put it another way: “What would you *count* as evidence of [vote fraud]?”
Michael: “No, I have not seen 2000 Mules so I admit the evidence could be out there and I have not seen it.”
Michael, can you not see that you are behaving/reasoning exactly as the internet ‘atheists’ and/or Wokeistas you regularly pillory do?
Me: ==Michael, can you not see that you are behaving/reasoning exactly as the internet ‘atheists’ and/or Wokeistas you regularly pillory do?==
For example —
Ilíon: “Michael, please don’t let your dislike of Trump blind you — the 2020 election *was* stolen, many of the 2022 elections *were* stolen, and the Dems fully intend to steal 2024.”
Michael: “So if the elections will always be stolen, there is no reason to vote for the GOP, right?”
That response was so beneath you that I’m still shaking my head.
For example —
Michael: “Or consider Ohio. The governor there was DeWine, who won 62% to 38%. Trumpsters hate DeWine. Go to the Senate. Ohio has gone Red over the last decade, so the Trump-supported Senate candidate did win. But only with 53% of the vote. Get this. 2.5 millon voted for DeWine, but only 2.15 voted for Vance. That’s 350,000 people who voted for the GOP governor, but couldn’t back the Trump-supported Senate candidate.”
Ilíon: “Or, to put it another way, a lot of Democratic voters in Democratic strongholds still remember what it was like last time this State had a Democratic governor, and so voted for the semi-Dem RINO DeWine.”
You haven’t acknowledged that your take was flawed.
For example –
Michael: “ What’s more, I’m not sure Trump supporters fully appreciate just how much Trump is hated by the majority of Americans. …”
Ilíon: “ According to this piece from Joe Hoft at ‘Gateway Pundit’, as of 4:30 pm on November 9, of the candidates Trump backed, so far 174 won their races and 9 lost.”
You still haven’t shown us the evidence that “Trump is hated by the majority of Americans.”, nor acknowledged that perhaps your claim is … unfounded.
For example –
Michael: “Why not deliver a 60 seat majority in the Senate and a larger majority in the House?”
TFBW: “If they had achieved that, would you suspect that they were cheating? If the answer is yes, then they were wise to cheat only enough to retain the most easily-held reins of power (where the number of points of control is the least). If the answer is no, then they’ll probably figure that out eventually and work their way up to it.”
Michael: “ As for keeping a razor thin majority so as to not make it so obvious, why bother? Democrats salivate for Power, not playing and winning 3D chess. If they have the ability to do widespread cheating, just elect 60 Senators and a supermajority in the House. ”
You seem to be saying that unless the Dems are cheating *everywhere* (and soto voce: and it can be proven), then it is unreasonable to believe that they are cheating at all.
As you surely know, “electing” 60 Senators via fraud is near impossible (*), as each State has two Senators, who are elected in State-wide elections, and thus fraud on this scale would require near-total political control of at least 30 States. Generating enough fraudulent votes in Philadelphia in any given election cycle to “outvote” the rest of the Pennsylvania does nothing about the votes cast in Ohio … but, given the way Electoral College votes are distributed, this sort of localized fraud *can* swing not only State-wide elections, but also the presidential election.
(*) Currently. They’re working on it; the *point* of switching to electronic voting machines since the 2000 election is to facilitate fraud.
Ilion,
I don’t really have the time to keep arguing about this, but I’ll offer up one more reply so you don’t think I’m just ignoring ya.
OR, to put it another way: “What would you *count* as evidence of [vote fraud]?”
A GOP candidate with a high approval rating being defeated under suspicious conditions.
You haven’t acknowledged that your take was flawed.
How is it flawed? I simply noted the facts: ” 2.5 millon voted for DeWine, but only 2.15 voted for Vance. That’s 350,000 people who voted for the GOP governor, but couldn’t back the Trump-supported Senate candidate.”
You attribute this to Democratic voters wanting a RINO instead of a Democrat. This could account for some of the 350,000 people, but even then, it still means lots of people who voted for the GOP governor, couldn’t back the Trump-supported Senate candidate.
You still haven’t shown us the evidence that “Trump is hated by the majority of Americans.”, nor acknowledged that perhaps your claim is … unfounded.
Hate was too strong of a word. But the favorability/unfavorability data have been consistent for years. Here’s one where34% people have a positive view of Trump, while 54% have a negative view of him.
There are dozens and dozens of similar results from different polling places that span years.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
Think of how this speaks to your point about rallies:
Isn’t it *odd* that a man allegedly hated passionately by the majority of Americans continues to draw massive crowds — even in the strongholds of the opposing party?
There are 330 million people in the USA. 34% of that is around 110 million. You can get large crowds by getting a tiny fraction of them to come out.
Meanwhile, Biden — who got more “votes” than Obama — sometimes even draws scores of supporters. But then, these days, Obama himself doesn’t really draw massive crowds.
That’s why they made the 2020 election All About Trump. It was a referendum on Trump. The more they could keep Biden hidden away in the background the more they could keep an unpopular candidate (who trailed in every poll) in the forefront.
Notice how the Democrats handle Trump to this day. Do they want to talk about something else? Nope. They want to talk about Trump. They wanted to make every election about Trump. Trump, Trump, and more Trump. Obsessed with Trump. The reason is obvious – Trump is an anchor around the GOP’s neck.
You seem to be saying that unless the Dems are cheating *everywhere* (and soto voce: and it can be proven), then it is unreasonable to believe that they are cheating at all.
No, I’m sure there is cheating here and there (Dem strongholds). I wouldn’t be surprised to find the GOP cheating in some of its strongholds. The issue is whether the cheating is so extensive and systematic and signficant that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and now the 2022 Red Wave was stolen.
One more reply and I’m moving on.
That’s not how cheating works. Cheating works by first eliminating the security measures which make cheating hard, like holding elections on a single day, voting in person, using physical ballots, and counting the ballots under scrutiny on the same day. They constantly promote removal of these features. Voter ID is racist! Voting in person is racist! The Republicans are engaging in voter suppression with all these rules! Once the rules are removed, each one represents a possible margin of fraud. How many mail-in ballots can we harvest and post? Can we import ballots into areas which need an edge? Can we count votes in the middle of the night without scrutiny? In this election, they seem to have used a trick of deploying broken machinery to the red areas. Sorry, the machines are broken and not reading the Republican votes! Sorry, we ran out of ballot paper! You can put a ballot in the secure box, and it will be counted later (unless we manage to lose the box first). This isn’t genius-level stuff: it just takes a certain Machiavellian prioritisation of winning over ethics.
Sure. Many of these issues have been well known for years and many are trying to push back. But I would agree with Ace:
Conservative voters have got to let go of the principled insistence that we only vote on Election Day.
Sure, in our principled world there would only be voting on Election Day, in person, with voter ID, and sufficient paper ballots for every voter. However, we don’t live in that world, so there is no sense trying to behave as we do. Our principles are allowing liberal election administrators in blue areas to suppress election day balloting when conservatives come out to vote.
If you’ll remember in the 2020 election, Trump spent months warning people not to mail in their votes because they would not be counted. And I am quite sure most of his supporters took that message to heart. On the other side, most Democrats were still afraid of Covid and standing in line an a voting booth. They mailed theirs in. So OF COURSE the Democrats would massively dominate the mail-in vote.
So let’s put it this way: if the Democrats are as power-mad as you say, then don’t you think they’d take every unscrupulous opportunity to cheat and tip the scales their way? Why would you need any evidence of fraud? It should be a thing that you automatically expect to the maximum extent possible, and you should automatically think of any “convenience” in voting as exactly the kind of exploitable loophole they will abuse. That’s what I think is going on. They now put more research into election fraud and less into attracting votes because they already have a captive base of people who will vote blue no matter who, and election security is so lax that it’s much easier to cheat your way past the 50% mark than it is to do the same by attracting votes.
I think that if the Democrats had the power to take the Presidency, Senate, and House all with cheating, they would do it in a heartbeat without any concern about any accusations of cheating. But it’s clear to me they don’t have this power by the way they handle elections. They still hide their extreme Left views when running in general elections, they themselves get all worked up about elections being stolen from them (they now think DeSantis rigged the system to get him elected), and they tear into each with with finger-pointing about strategies when they lose:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-york-democrats-divided-between-moderates-progressives-after-disappointing-defeats-172545830.html
Many of these issues have been well known for years and many are trying to push back.
So let me see if I understand this. You think they are engaging in a certain amount of fraud, but not enough to sway the outcome of an election? Not enough to be a concern? You feel this way because if they did have that kind of power they’d already have granted themselves a super-majority everywhere, as opposed to clinging to a slender majority?
I don’t quite follow the rationale, so I’m either misunderstanding you or missing something. If fraud is taking place, the important question is, “how many outcomes did that fraud affect?” We don’t have an answer to that most of the time. Trump thinks that the 2020 election was stolen from him this way, and the evidence of 2000 Mules suggests that’s entirely possible: it only takes a small margin of fraud concentrated in a few swing states to make it happen, and there is ample evidence that sufficient fraud took place. Isn’t that a serious problem?
Maybe you don’t care so much about this because you dislike Trump, but the whole electoral process is based on faith in the system. If people think the game is being rigged, they start to give up on the game. One possible outcome of this is that many Republicans just give up on voting, because they don’t want to engage in ritual humiliation, and that leaves you with the one-party state that the Democrats crave. Also, the box of last resort after the ballot box is the ammo box. The integrity of elections is of utmost importance if stability is to be maintained without force. It’s the only form of enfranchisement that the average citizen really has.
Any thoughts on the role of abortion as an issue? From where I sit, it looks like that Republicans who push for a strong ban don’t get nearly as far as politicians like Youngkin and DeSantis, who are pushing restrictions at the 16-week point.
I think they’ll have to do as Youngkin and DeSantis (and Europe does). A complete ban, or even a ban with a few exceptions, is political poison. However, allowing aboriton in the second/third trimester allows Republicans to turn the issue against Democrats. You’ll see campaign ads with pictures of third trimester fetuses that ask why the Democrat wants to kill this baby.
2000 mules is an idiotic documentary by liar and former jail bird Dinesh D’Souza
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ
Democrats don’t cheat to win by the slimmest of margins, so this must be totally legit.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-overturns-election-result-in-recount-beats-republican-by-one-vote/ar-AA148xeO
^ Democrats believe in “counting all the votes” … and and many times as it takes. But, only until the Dem “wins”.
ratheist, paraphrased: “‘2000 Mules’ presents indisputable fact”
Apparently, ratheist doesn’t understand that by now, simply everyone understands that when “fact checkers” assert ‘A’, the truth is bound to be ‘not-A’.
As I have noted elsewhere …
The word “check” has multiple meanings, even as a verb. One might check something in the sense of checking it out; engaging in an independent act of verification. In that sense, however, “fact-checker” is a misnomer: a fact is a fact; one can only check a claim to see if it corresponds with fact or not.
Another sense of “check” is to inhibit, prevent, or impede something: to hold it in check. This is the sense of “check” used in chess. In that sense, a “fact-checker” might be someone who prevents knowledge of facts from spreading.
It all makes sense now, doesn’t it?
Adjusting my mental model a little further: I probably underestimated how much self-sabotage was involved with Establishment Republicans trying to undermine America First Republicans, even to the extent of preferring compliant Democrats as winners. So it’s not all fraud: there’s corruption, too.
https://nationalfile.com/mccarthy-used-ftx-cash-to-defeat-conservatives-in-2022/
^ Indeed.
There is also the problem that “normies” — such as Our Host — *refuse* to see the corruption, and especially the fraud, which refusal makes them “enablers”.