Delaying the election? Trump continues to be his own worse enemy.

1. 79

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   It is just dumb, why would the President even open this can of worms? It if were me, I would have asked privately about the possibility of postponing elections, before revealing to the entire world how ignorant I was about the nature and content of this nation's guiding document. Stupid stuff, where he gives his opponents the ammunition for the next round of attacks.
   
   So what is the big attack on mail in ballots that have been used for years and is currently being used in Florida, where I currently reside? It is dumb for the Republicans to resist and make lame excuses in opposition to the practice of mail in. I am certainly using a mail in ballot.  This Coronavirus is dangerous, as its effects are varied and unpredictable.  Is the GOP involved in just another suppression scheme to cull the ranks of eligible voters?
   
   They had just better remember that the geriatric class, its constituency, is more likely to vote "mail in", and the GOP with this attitude could adversely affect its own turnout.
   
   Again, who does he think that he is?
   
   
   The United States has never in its history delayed a presidential election, it is pointed out, and there's no justification to do it now. Everybody knows that it's not even within Trump's power to delay or cancel the election, and it's up to states whether they want to use mail-in ballots, which the president has decried.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      While there is zero doubt that Trump's question (not demand, not even suggestion) that delay of the election should be considered, made in public like that, was foolish for it but gave more ammunition to those that will twist the question into a demand.
      
      But as far as being "dumb for the Republicans to resist" hundreds of millions of mail in ballots, well, it is far dumber for liberals to insist there will be no perceptible fraud or other problems and even dumber for insisting that everyone else believe their lie in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary with the much smaller number already being sent out.
      
      The question is not "how easy can we make it to vote"; it is "how can we make voting as secure and honest as possible".  And if that means the "geriatric class" must make an hour trip to the polls, so be it.  Trump won last time with that requirement and can do so again; there is no reason to think that the "geriatric class" will suddenly fail to vote for their candidate.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         It would have been better not to ask questions for which you should have already known the answer.
         
         You Republicans have got your "fears" about mail in vote fraud with no real substantive evidence beyond the fact that Trump says so. And that is NO reason at all. Let's just see how well he does in Nevada filing a law suit against the state for making mail in voting available?
         
         So, we balance that out with our fears of dirty voter suppression stunts the GOP have employed in the past to place unwarranted obstacles to voting against the portion of the electorate more certain to vote against them.
         
         So, were even. I tell you that this election cycle is not like the last one, under the current circumstance that geriatric class may well avoid the trip, this time. The insistence on personal appearance at the polls in the face of the Coronavirus and the GOP resistance to mail in- while okaying absentee ballots,which is the same, will be a source of confusion and just another nail in the coffin for the Republicans this Fall.
         
         As always, I say, may the best man win....

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "It would have been better not to ask questions for which you should have already known the answer."
            
            Are you saying it is impossible to change the date of an election?  Not from a practical standpoint, but just flat out impossible?  I don't think I would agree with that....
            
            "You Republicans have got your "fears" about mail in vote fraud with no real substantive evidence..."
            
            And yet we KNOW, from the little bit of checking on the few mail in ballots typically used, that fraud occurs.  Liberals will ignore it and claim it doesn't happen, but the facts say otherwise.  (A long list of fraudulent voting has been posted in these forums if you care to search for it.)
            
            LOL  Cred, you can pretend that Dem's are not just as dirty all you wish, but those actually think beyond their bias know better.
            
            No, this cycle is different.  Liberals having been frothing at the mouth to get their own candidate in.  They've committed grievous crimes, have spent millions of dollars in failed "investigations", have done nearly anything they can imagine - this mail in thing is just one more attempt to sidestep legal methods and accomplish their nefarious goals.
            
            (I don't think there is a "best man", or woman, this time around.)

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               We did not change the date of the election during a Civil War, two World wars or the Great Depression and it takes an act of Congress, that Trump doesn't has a snowballs chance in hell of obtaining. With odds like that, I would have a better chance getting to the Moon on a pogo stick.
               
               "No, this cycle is different.  Liberals having been frothing at the mouth to get their own candidate in.  They've committed grievous crimes, have spent millions of dollars in failed "investigations", have done nearly anything they can imagine - this mail in thing is just one more attempt to sidestep legal methods and accomplish their nefarious goals."
               
               That is a matter of opinion, I don't share it. We will leave it to the electorate to determine by their choices at the polls next fall, which side have "committed crimes".
               
               It is just as biased and naive to assume that Trump and the Republican don Angels wings of virtue.
               
               But again, we will let the voters decide. We can agree on that, right?
               
               The Nevada showdown may well be most helpful as Trump will have to objectively substantiate proof that mail in voting is fraught with corruption and disadvantages Republicans. He had better have his ducks in a role to provide proof enough to turn back a state governor and his policy. This, I will have to see.

               replyreport
      2. 68

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The possibilities are many. Some say his opponents were empty head. Here is Trump likely in the same class. All the same, it is better the election was not postpone or delay.

         replyreport
   2. 90

      IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The delaying "question" is just his modus operandi; a distraction. He always does or says any outrageous thing to distract from something that affects him more. Plus he tests the waters that way. I suspect many "patriots" would wipe with the constitution just to defend or help Trump.
      
      The attack on mail-in ballots is just a cover. He would need an excuse if he ends up losing. His ego wont let him live.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I would think that he would rather go down in martyrdom than face a humiliating loss, after all even Obama got a second term....
         
         The idea or suggestion is DOA, dead on arrival

         replyreport
      2. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Hmm . . .  Give me a couple of days to find something about that to argue with. ;-)
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 90

            IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            About time!

            replyreport
      3. 77

         Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I think this is far more to the truth of the matter, in regards to his saying it just to generate attention and reaction, as well as for prepping his ego.
         
         The bigger issues are all around us, out of control State governments becoming radical and eviscerating the freedoms and liberties of citizens living within their borders.
         
         Scary stuff going on in places like CA, OR, WA, even NY.
         
         And I can only imagine the lunacy they are invoking today will only become magnified and multiplied once they know they will have the backing of the President and the Federal government.
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ELi4ZTNGzk

         replyreport
   3. 94

      Tim Truzy info4uposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      We have never postponed a presidential election - even when polio, measles, and other diseases gripped the country. Even wars haven't stopped our presidential elections. On another note: apparently, conservative commentators have indicated Trump should be impeached if he continues to state he will not accept election results. That in itself, is  treason.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, the GOP is trying to muzzle him, knowing that what he asks is virtually impossible. If he loses, he will go even if it is at the point of a bayonet.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Are you calling Hillary and democrats  traitors? We've listened to three years of it from that side.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Tim Truzy info4uposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Show me. RIF.

            replyreport
2. 89

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   My gut initially worried about the fraud possibilities with mail-in voting, but the part of me that doesn't like to be wrong went looking for information to either support my gut or remind it of its proximity to my butt.
   
   Although one claim that there is "zero evidence" of mail-in fraud is wrong, (there have been minor instances that had a negligible impact, (even that N.C(?) Republican example wouldn't seriously impact a national election)), I did find that it seems worries about massive fraud are unsupported. I would say that the states that have been using mail-in balloting for years—without evidence of serious fraud problems, should be seen as proof that it is safe.
   
   I did find one reassurance, relative to bad actors printing millions of bogus ballots, that I had not thought of. There is not a single ballot, that will be mailed to everyone, that a bad actor could easily counterfeit. There will be thousands of different ballots with the only thing they have in common being the presidential selection.
   
   Every state, and, every county ballot will be different because there will be a different slate of down-ballot selections. I can't see a realistic possibility that millions of bogus ballots could be introduced.
   
   I like the ritual symbolism of actually going to the polls and casting my vote, and would prefer that method be maintained, but, I haven't found a legitimate argument against mail-in balloting. The only "problem" I can see is the delay in knowing the winner.
   
   As for whether Pres. Trump's 'delay the election' statement was a question, a suggestion, or a demand . . . I think it was just a political move to plant a seed of doubt, or, lay a marker for a later claim of the election being illegitimate. *shrug*
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "I did find that it seems worries about massive fraud are unsupported"
      
      Worries are unsupported, or there is no evidence of massive fraud...because there has never been massive amounts of mail in ballots used?  The difference seems important.
      
      We already see the first hints that the postal service cannot handle the immense, short term load - what will happen when they are really inundated with ballots?  How many will simply be lost, without any real fraud intended?  How many will be miscounted, in systems designed for other forms of ballots? 
      
      There is far more to an honest election than just outright fraud.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         "We already see the first hints that the postal service cannot handle the immense, short term load - what will happen when they are really inundated with ballots?  How many will simply be lost, without any real fraud intended?  How many will be miscounted, in systems designed for other forms of ballots?"
         
         This may very well be a valid point of concern.

         replyreport
      2. 94

         Tim Truzy info4uposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Strong reason to make sure our postal service functions properly by providing adequate funding when asked, even if the service is supposed to be partially independently funded, as opposed to fighting to reduce or eliminate funding.

         replyreport
      3. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         You are right, there are always going to be 'what ifs'. But, I am unsure of your thought that, relative to this topic, there is "far more to an honest election than just outright fraud."
         
         Obviously there are the possible problems of an overwhelmed system, (whether postal delivery or ballot counting), but I don't know if those are insurmountable possibilities that would make a mail-in ballot election less than an honest one.
         
         Relative to the point about the postal system being crashed by the volume, I was tempted to dig into its distribution network and the history of its performance in all those states, over all those years, that have used a mail-in balloting system. But then thought, nah, too much work for a determination of the degree of possibility for an issue that, most probably, would only be relative to an issue of timely results.
         
         You could be right. There may be the possibility of "lost" ballots, but I think that possibility is one we have lived with for previous elections. (I can't remember the scenario of van loads of "mysterious" ballot boxes, but maybe it was in Florida???).
         
         So, considering that we will always have "what if" possibilities regardless of our balloting method, I have to stick with the considerations of the fraud claims of this instance. And I just can't find any support for the doomsday proclamations. We have multiple states that have had all-mail-in balloting for years, and there isn't any substantial evidence of fraud, or, procedural problems that have cast doubt on their results.
         
         I gotta put my gut in its place and go with reason on this one. I think we can have a legitimate mail-in ballot election.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "As for whether Pres. Trump's 'delay the election' statement was a question, a suggestion, or a demand . . . I think it was just a political move to plant a seed of doubt, or, lay a marker for a later claim of the election being illegitimate. *shrug*"
      
      That is as palatable as anything, it is most likely reason why he would even allow something like this to come up in the first place.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yep.
         
         GA

         replyreport