Which will cause more protests, riots, fisticuffs, and other uncivilized behavior?

[yaxomoxay]

I haven't been in a polling booth for many many years - long time. I didn't even know they had that option! Interesting!

Yep, I usually vote on day 2 or day 3 of early voting . I think polls are open two weeks before election day and it's a good solution.
The bad thing is that you might vote early and then a video of your candidate eating children for breakfast pops up on youtube...

 

[yaxomoxay]

To me, Trump's done so much shit that's crossed so many lines, and done so much to subvert our established norms,

Your legit opinion. It's very valid.

I find it difficult to watch more sane conservatives justify the creepy ass cult of personality bullshit that's risen around him

For me rule #1 in politics is to never pledge allegiance to a politician, no matter how much we agree with him/her.

 

[DT]

It's not me because everyone likes me on MR

Well, you might think that, but there's a whole group of us that do a Zoom meeting every Sunday, to talk about how much we despise you. We call you names, usually someone shows a drawing they made of you, where you've got poop on your head, there's a whole invocation where we say the "We hate yaxomaxay" prayer. We bring new members in, it's sort of like AA, but it's YA, users who don't completely hate you, and feel bad about it, they cry, we tell them it's OK to want to launch you into the sun, etc.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Well, you might think that, but there's a whole group of us that do a Zoom meeting every Sunday, to talk about how much we despise you. We call you names, usually someone shows a drawing they made of you, where you've got poop on your head, there's a whole invocation where we say the "We hate yaxomaxay" prayer. We bring new members in, it's sort of like AA, but it's YA, users who don't completely hate you, and feel bad about it, they cry, we tell them it's OK to want to launch you into the sun, etc.

Man, don't make me feel so important. I might end up loving it!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Right now, I'd say Trump's primary goal isn't to prevent people from voting specifically, but to spread enough FUD about the process to justify him pitching a fit if he loses in November.

Well said, and I think that this is what it is all about.

So let me frame this: I'm not piling on, I only play a psychologist on TV - and if as a result of this, you want to come at me 'bro, I welcome it, I'm scrappy ...

OK, whew, deep breath, so here's the thing, and I'll use a different MR member to frame this post, no names (I won't confirm/deny guesses, but it's not you), he contributes long posts, he's educated, seems pretty bright, reasonably articulate and says all the following:

I don't support Trump.
I'm not a Republican.
I'm not a Democrat.

... though he does he punctuates that with:

I don't vote (so that's a slightly less applicable model, but I'll carry on)

He seems to be highly motivated to not be seen as "taking a side", in fact, he often prefaces his posts with just that, and goes so far as to suggest he's not even part of the process (as a non-voter), so why would he "support X". He obviously attributes a great deal of "intellectual value" to not supporting a specific party.

The few posts he might start as a positive perspective of a left policy, __always__ have a "but", there's always some caveat that tips his perspective to clearly right leaning ideologies, and effectively invalidates the slightly positive comment about left policies.

I'd never use the 'like' reactions as any form of serious analysis, but I do find it funny, that this user almost NEVER receives any upvotes from anyone other than the standard, extreme right wing loud mouthed cabal (whose names we all certainly know ...), and they very often like his posts.

To be clear, the issue people have, is when they feel it's a disingenuous "I don't support X", when clearly, the "data" shows otherwise. It actually teeters into borderline insulting territory, i.e., if someone claims ALL their perspectives purely objective measures of some policy as seen through a non-partisan lens of intellect, that's sort of suggests someone else's rebuttal is from a position of intellectual inferiority, aka, the aforementioned are on their High Horse ...

Again, not you, just using some conversations we've had about this particular user to offer a perspective.

I was about to write 'snigger'.

And yes, I believe I know of whom you write.

This sort of faux-impartiality and pseudo-objectivity really irks me. What was most striking was that this "objectivity" never - ever, not once, in my recollection - concluded by finding anything of merit in a perspective that wasn't right wing.

I wanted to say to that individual "own your views" openly, admit them, and please, please, please, cease, desist, simply stop pretending that the size of your intellect and eminence of your impressive qualifications obliges you to ascend this lofty perch, equidistant from all political perspectives - for impartiality is, naturally, your default setting, - from where all can be judged objectively (but from where the left perspective is invariably found sadly wanting).

 

[yaxomoxay]

Well said, and I think that this is what it is all about.



I was about to write 'snigger'.

And yes, I believe I know of whom you write.

This sort of faux-impartiality and pseudo-objectivity really irks me. What was most striking was that this "objectivity" never - ever, not once, in my recollection - concluded by finding anything of merit in a perspective that wasn't right wing.

I wanted to say to that individual "own your views" openly, admit them, and please, please, please, cease, desist, simply stop pretending that the size of your intellect and eminence of your impressive qualifications obliges you to ascend this lofty perch, equidistant from all political perspectives - for impartiality is, naturally, your default setting, - from where all can be judged objectively (but from where the left perspective is invariably found sadly wanting).

Just to be clear since this discussion started with and because of me, I never claimed and I will never will to be impartial.

 

[Renzatic]

My view is, that's why he won right? Congress' low approval rating, how most politicians are so disconnected from the average " " American. It is scary how much influence people can have over others.

I've been screamed at by Trump2020 supporters just by driving by with a mask on. That was a shocker for me. lol.

Trump won for a lot of reasons. People wanted a change from the Washington standard, Hillary wasn't exactly the most likable candidate around, was under active investigation, blah blah blah, and Trump did make a lot of concessions to the more left leaning folks, which is something a lot of people on both sides of the aisle tend to forget these days.

Though he did a ton of hinky shit during the run up to the 2016 election, I can sorta understand why a lot of people voted for Trump.

What mystifies me is why people will vote for Trump now.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Just to be clear since this discussion started with and because of me, I never claimed and I will never will to be impartial.

Fair enough.

However, this wasn't about you, my friend.

 

[Renzatic]

Must be great at parties!

Mix it with some mineral spirits, and holy shit, you got yourself DA JOOCE!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Never said it’s a new tactic and never agreed with Trump on that in 2016 as I don’t agree with it now.

I am saying that in 2020 both parties positioned themselves (heck Mrs Abrams still thinks she was elected governor) and will likely blame USPS.

You know, this is one of the things I like about this site.

You recalled that Mr Trump had actually made this threat, and didn't dispute the factual accuracy of my post.

Had I posted my comments on something I remembered Mr Trump as having said from the election of 2016 - in this instance, his disgraceful and appalling threat not to accept the election result, or the outcome of the election, before the election had even taken place - in The Other Place (MR), some individual - the sort of perfervid poster who froths while bashing keys, or tapping furiously on a touch screen - would have vehemently disputed that this had happened, others would demand "proof", yet others would decry whatever proof (or source) offered as "fake news".......and the whole discussion would have become irrevocably derailed.

None of the above is a Federal government issue.

Okay, it seems that we are back - once again - to states' rights, and to the rights of individual states to set their own regulations on how the election (voters' registration, the actual vote, numbers and locations of polling stations/precincts, and the actual count, both counting and recording of this) should be conducted and carried out.

A question to all of the Americans (which is nearly everyone, apart from myself) here: Should this - running an election, and the regulations that govern this - remain an issue for states to decide and determine?

Should there be a federal standard - or an independent standard that the respective states agree on collectively - which should be met when federal elections (for President and both Houses) are run?

 

[yaxomoxay]

Okay, it seems that we are back - once again - to states' rights, and to the rights of individual states to set their own regulations on how the election (registration, vote, and count) should be conducted and carried out.

A question to all of the Americans (which is nearly everyone, apart from myself) here: Should this - running an election, and the regulations that govern this - remain an issue for states to decide and determine?

Should there be a federal standard - or an independent standard that the respective states agree on collectively - which should be met when federal elections (for President and both Houses) are run?

I'd say no. Apart from the more "philosophical" point, the fact that the Feds can't interfere that much is a good protection of the overall system from various interferences, including - but not least - hacking from other countries. While it might be a bit "messy", decentralization really prevents anyone in power from making too much damage at once (or, at least, there would be serious issues in doing so). The fact that Governors tell the POTUS in charge (whoever) to piss off regularly and initiate legal actions every day is probably the best protection of our freedoms.