Full of Craft

Yep, it’s time for another jaunt through pop culture with the men of GLoP. But fair warning: we do discuss politics in this show, so if you are not interested in some Rank Punditry®, you can skip from 3:12 to 23:48 in this podcast. So let’s keep the garment rending in the comments to a minimum, deal? After the political talk, the guys cover a movies that are so bad, they’re good, John makes a bold statement about Jimmy Stewart’s performance in It’s A Wonderful Life, Jonah professes his love for a more recent Christmas movie, and Rob confesses to possibly causing bodily harm to a legendary comedian. Also, should Ph.D’s be called doctors? The GLoP-pers have thoughts. Leave yours in the comments below.

Subscribe to GLoP Culture in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

ExpressVPN

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 106 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Joseph Stocks (View Comment):

    So doesn’t Jonah and JPod tell us that we silo ourselves when it comes to news consumption (whether pop culture or otherwise) and now we get explicit warnings not to consume their views if we disagree with them. 

    How about we listen to them and voice our disagreements with them? No good?

    No, that was not the point including the time code. The point was to give people who don’t want to hear it the ability to skip it as it has been requested for a long time. Again, there is literally no winning here. 

    That it’s being interpreted as some sort of ominous warning or a clumsy attempt at censorship speaks volumes. 

    If we had wanted to censor it, we would have cut it out of the show. 

    • #31
  2. M.D. Wenzel Inactive
    M.D. Wenzel
    @MDWenzel

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    M.D. Wenzel (View Comment):
    To be honest, I have been as fan of GLOP since the beginning, but have skipped the past several episodes as Trump seems to have broken Jonah. I would have completely ignored this one as well had it not shown up in the main feed and featured your smug and condescending “warning” Perhaps I should have shown more restraint and not commented, but I find your sanctimonious approach to be particularly off-putting

    You know, I honestly didn’t mean this to be smug or condescending, I meant it to be light-hearted and included the time code as a public service because it has been requested for a while now. I resisted doing it because I of course would prefer for the audience to listen to the whole show. A lot of effort goes into it, and it’s not meant to be consumed like a buffet. So against my own wishes, I did it anyway and it’s being taken as condescending. 🤷‍♂️

    For the previous episode of GLoP, I wrote a completely generic show description and was roundly criticized for that too. Bottom line: There is literally no way to please everyone, so I should probably stop trying to please you. Or perhaps, caring.

     

    If it were just the one condescending comment in this episode it would have come off as light hearted. The problem is that this is a persistent trend. Anyone who disagrees with the show’s hosts is dismissed as some kind of unthinking Trump sycophant incapable of dealing with opposing views. I did not vote for Trump in 2016, find him crass and crude, and wish he would stop Tweeting so much. But, when I hear the hosts of this show repeat the exact same criticisms of his demeanor ad nauseam show after show after show it gets tiresome.

    I am sure there are other lukewarm Trump supporters who feel the same way and do not appreciate being talked down to. I have no expectation that you go out of your way to please me, I would just expect you not to make ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with the host’s point of view

    • #32
  3. Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… Inactive
    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai…
    @Gaius

    Ricochet Audio Network: Full of Craft

    You went with that instead of “smooth foil.” I don’t comprehend that.

    • #33
  4. La Tapada Member
    La Tapada
    @LaTapada

    I feel the need to balance out the comments here. I enjoy listening to the opinions of Jonah, John and Rob on this podcast. I sometimes disagree with them, but I accept them as they are. I feel I am getting to know them better as I listen, just as I listen, in-person, to my own friends, who I don’t always agree with. 

    There are probably many listeners who feel the same way, but don’t bother to comment on the fact. 

    I will say that I don’t enjoy a podcast when the whole hour is anti-Trump; I avoid those. But in the GLoP podcast they keep it light and they balance each other out. 

    I am able to enjoy people even if some of their opinions are different than mine.

    • #34
  5. La Tapada Member
    La Tapada
    @LaTapada

    Also, the “political portion” made me laugh; it sounded like a group therapy session.

    • #35
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    If you are not a fan of occasional juvenile humor (perfectly reasonable), then after 157 episodes, I’m not sure why you are still listening or why you expect them to suddenly change.

    But the cornhole episode was a classic.

     

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    If you are not a fan of occasional juvenile humor (perfectly reasonable), then after 157 episodes, I’m not sure why you are still listening or why you expect them to suddenly change.

    But the cornhole episode was a classic.

     

    That was pre-Trump, wasn’t it?  I don’t remember offhand.

    • #37
  8. Edward D. Hyde Inactive
    Edward D. Hyde
    @EdwardDHyde

    La Tapada (View Comment):

    . . .

    There are probably many listeners who feel the same way, but don’t bother to comment on the fact. 

    Definitely true.  A lot of us still really enjoy hearing what the trio have to say (on political and non-political matters alike), but as with online product and service reviews, those who have had a bad experience or are angry are disproportionately the ones motivated to post their feelings about it.  I’ve noticed that at least occasionally, a newer Ricochet member has gotten the impression (I only know because he said so in the comments) that all the listeners hate the podcast, but the truth is that most listeners don’t leave comments.

    . . .

    I am able to enjoy people even if some of their opinions are different than mine.

    An extremely useful life skill that I wish were not in such short supply these days, on both the right and the left.

    • #38
  9. Edward D. Hyde Inactive
    Edward D. Hyde
    @EdwardDHyde

    M.D. Wenzel (View Comment):
    Either way, the point seems to be that any disagreement with the hosts of this podcast is unreasonable.

    One definition of a troll is someone who comments (and maybe listens in the first place) not to be part of a conversation, but only to say negative things.  Of course I’m not saying that all criticism or pushback in comments is inappropriate, but if a person is showing up only to try to tear people down, it’s no longer constructive criticism or a conversation or even a debate; it’s trolling.

    I think it’s clear that these days some people are showing up to listen (or not) to Goldberg’s other podcast and this one only so that they can continue to repeat their same old defenses of Trump and disparagements of the podcasters.

    (Edit:  To be clear, I mean general “you”—was definitely not intending to say anything about the commenter I was responding to, just speaking to anyone who might be still reading my comment at that point.)

    If this doesn’t describe you, then of course I wasn’t talking about you.

    If it does, I guess you can decide what that means for you.

     

    • #39
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Edward D. Hyde (View Comment):

    M.D. Wenzel (View Comment):
    Either way, the point seems to be that any disagreement with the hosts of this podcast is unreasonable.

    One definition of a troll is someone who comments (and maybe listens in the first place) not to be part of a conversation, but only to say negative things. Of course I’m not saying that all criticism or pushback in comments is inappropriate, but if a person is showing up only to try to tear people down, it’s no longer constructive criticism or a conversation or even a debate; it’s trolling.

    I think it’s clear that these days some people are showing up to listen (or not) to Goldberg’s other podcast and this one only so that they can continue to repeat their same old defenses of Trump and disparagements of the podcasters.

    (Edit: To be clear, I mean general “you”—was definitely not intending to say anything about the commenter I was responding to, just speaking to anyone who might be still reading my comment at that point.)

    If this doesn’t describe you, then of course I wasn’t talking about you.

    If it does, I guess you can decide what that means for you.

    Arguably, the trolls in these cases are the Jonah Goldbergs and Rob Longs who are the ones claiming that supporting Trump is insane, etc.  Or, like Jonah did again this time, asserting that the perhaps 90%-plus of Republicans who support Trump are somehow actually the “outliers” and “minority of yahoos.”

    • #40
  11. Pagodan Member
    Pagodan
    @MatthewBaylot

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    M.D. Wenzel (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: garment rendering

    Rending. Rendering is a very different thing.

    Either way, the point seems to be that any disagreement with the hosts of this podcast is unreasonable. I thought commenting on posts and podcasts was how one was supposed to use Ricochet; apparently I have been using the site incorrectly for the past decade.

    It has gotten to the point where the condescending comments in the description are worse than the show itself.

    You must be new around here. But I agree with you 100%. Disagreement and debate is the DNA of this place. Or at least, it used to be.

    You can’t see how condescending so much of the podcast is?

    Read his next post, its more condescending then the podcast and the podcast description. God forbid paying members comment on the product they’re paying for.

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Pagodan (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    M.D. Wenzel (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: garment rendering

    Rending. Rendering is a very different thing.

    Either way, the point seems to be that any disagreement with the hosts of this podcast is unreasonable. I thought commenting on posts and podcasts was how one was supposed to use Ricochet; apparently I have been using the site incorrectly for the past decade.

    It has gotten to the point where the condescending comments in the description are worse than the show itself.

    You must be new around here. But I agree with you 100%. Disagreement and debate is the DNA of this place. Or at least, it used to be.

    You can’t see how condescending so much of the podcast is?

    Read his next post, its more condescending then the podcast and the podcast description. God forbid paying members comment on the product they’re paying for.

    Why do people who might (at least arguably) be experts at producing podcasts – or radio shows, etc – tend to start thinking they’re also experts at whatever subject the podcast is about?

    • #42
  13. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fact check: False. I just looked again to make sure, there are 11 comments, only one of which – #7 – might be taken as a criticism of your description, and that is just an “eye-rolling” photo.

    Maybe you got emails too, but it might be best to stick to claims that have public evidence.

    Fact check: you are not privy to all the feedback I get. Much of it was public in other threads, some of it was via PMs and emails.  I even got a few in the live Zoom chat of the Ricochet Podcast. 

    Sticking to claims that only have public evidence is solid advice, though. When will you be presenting the public evidence for the stolen election that for over a month you been insisting occurred? 

    • #43
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Fact check: False. I just looked again to make sure, there are 11 comments, only one of which – #7 – might be taken as a criticism of your description, and that is just an “eye-rolling” photo.

    Maybe you got emails too, but it might be best to stick to claims that have public evidence.

    Fact check: you are not privy to all the feedback I get. Much of it was public in other threads, some of it was via PMs and emails. I even got a few in the live Zoom chat of the Ricochet Podcast.

    Sticking to claims that only have public evidence is solid advice, though. When will you be presenting the public evidence for the stolen election that for over a month you been insisting occurred?

    I’m far from the most prolific of posters, but the public evidence has been all over including on the pages of Ricochet.  Not my fault if you ignore it, or think it doesn’t matter.

    • #44
  15. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    @roblong misstates the Constitutional issue. The Constitution doesn’t say that states set their own election procedures. It says the state LEGISLATURES set their election procedures. And that was exactly the issue: the state LEGISLATURES did not make the changes to election procedures that were being challenged.

    The operative language is: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

    This means that the legislature of each state determines how the electors are appointed. It does not govern how elections are conducted. That is actually in Article I, Section 4. The manner of appointment is how slates of Electors are chosen and then which slate gets to vote. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the specific slate of Electors is chosen by popular vote in each state.

    That is precisely what happened. As for the manner of the election itself, legislatures alone can’t administer elections. Someone needs to run the process and certify the results. If there are disputes, then the courts get involved. It’s a matter of state law, subject to some limitations imposed by federal law. But I really don’t see how the electors clause is implicated at all.

    • #45
  16. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Pagodan (View Comment):
    Read his next post, its more condescending then the podcast and the podcast description. God forbid paying members comment on the product they’re paying for.

    One, I’m not on the podcast and I have almost no control over what’s said on it. I make some topic suggestions and I add the clips, sounds effects, and music in post production. But once we start, it’s their show. As it should be.

    If you think my line about garment rending is condescending, I assure you that I meant it as a joke referencing the hundreds of very emotional and occasionally over-wrought comments we’ve received about this show over the past few years. Maybe it was a bad joke (I did write rendering rather than rending originally — thanks to @arahant for graciously correcting me), but it was intended to be taken humorously.

    Two, who is stopping anyone from commenting? Has anyone in this thread been censored or prohibited from posting their thoughts? What you seem to be saying is you want me to be censored. Honestly, not the worst idea I’ve heard today. Will mull on that one. Maybe I could suspend myself?

    And for the record — you don’t pay for the podcasts. They are free.

    • #46
  17. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And JPod misstates things too. It’s not just about 12,000 votes in Georgia and 90,000 votes in Pennsylvania. It’s about 12,000 QUESTIONABLE votes (more, really) in Georgia and 90,000 QUESTIONABLE votes (more, really) in Pennsylvania.

    What makes them questionable? Honest question! Are there tens of thousands of people who were ineligible? Were those ballots fabricated?

    In the Wisconsin litigation, the Trump campaign said that the fraud was committed by the election officials by the rules they established. They did not allege that anyone voted illegally. That matters. Are we really going to say that people who followed the rules set forth ahead of time should have their votes thrown out?

    • #47
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    @roblong misstates the Constitutional issue. The Constitution doesn’t say that states set their own election procedures. It says the state LEGISLATURES set their election procedures. And that was exactly the issue: the state LEGISLATURES did not make the changes to election procedures that were being challenged.

    The operative language is: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

    This means that the legislature of each state determines how the electors are appointed. It does not govern how elections are conducted. That is actually in Article I, Section 4. The manner of appointment is how slates of Electors are chosen and then which slate gets to vote. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the specific slate of Electors is chosen by popular vote in each state.

    That is precisely what happened. As for the manner of the election itself, legislatures alone can’t administer elections. Someone needs to run the process and certify the results. If there are disputes, then the courts get involved. It’s a matter of state law, subject to some limitations imposed by federal law. But I really don’t see how the electors clause is implicated at all.

    If you’re going to claim that the legislatures only decide “the people vote” and that’s it, that’s an interesting claim/assertion but I haven’t heard of any other support for it legally.  It might be arguable that an elections supervisor might determine how many polling locations there can be, but that wouldn’t be in violation of the legislature unless the legislature had determined a number and the elections supervisor changed that without authorization.

    On the other hand, if the legislature has determined what degree of signature verification is required for absentee ballots, for example, and the elections supervisor or someone else changed THAT, without legislative authority, how is that not a violation of “the state legislatures shall determine…” etc?

    And then you get to when even if the elections supervisor or governor or whoever, usurps legislative authority, and you say “if there are disputes, then the courts get involved” which is all nice unless you have courts that won’t do their jobs.

    • #48
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I think JPod misrepresents Scrooge/A Christmas Carol too.  It’s not just that Scrooge has a sudden change of heart and suddenly all is forgiven.  He changed his life, and for the rest of his days, he was changed.  So that night/the next day signaled the change, yes, but that was just the start.

    Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.

    Is that supposed to not matter?

    And why didn’t the guys asking Scrooge about a donation have 501(c)3 documentation etc?

    Because it was freakin’ 1843!

    And it was a freakin’ story, and later a movie!  How often do characters in freakin’ movies ask for 501(c)3 documentation?  On TV shows they often don’t even bother waiting for someone to answer the door after knocking, they don’t have time to waste on that!

     

    • #49
  20. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And why didn’t the guys asking Scrooge about a donation have 501(c)3 documentation etc?

    Because it was freakin’ 1843!

    And in England, where there is no law by that name, or if there is, it means something else.

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    And JPod misstates things too. It’s not just about 12,000 votes in Georgia and 90,000 votes in Pennsylvania. It’s about 12,000 QUESTIONABLE votes (more, really) in Georgia and 90,000 QUESTIONABLE votes (more, really) in Pennsylvania.

    What makes them questionable? Honest question! Are there tens of thousands of people who were ineligible? Were those ballots fabricated?

    In the Wisconsin litigation, the Trump campaign said that the fraud was committed by the election officials by the rules they established. They did not allege that anyone voted illegally. That matters. Are we really going to say that people who followed the rules set forth ahead of time should have their votes thrown out?

    Just for starters, read up about the audit of the voting machines used in Michigan.  There are strong indications that a large number of votes legitimately cast for Trump were switched to Biden by the voting and vote-counting systems.

    So, THOSE aren’t “illegal” votes, in the sense you seem to mean.  They were cast legally, by people legally allowed to vote.  And then the votes were switched.

    And then you have MILLIONS of ballots just sent out to addresses on voter registration rolls that haven’t been kept clean for DECADES, deliberately on the part of Democrats.  And widespread ballot harvesting, which is even inexplicably legal in some places…

    Also, as I’ve pointed out before but apparently need to repeat, if it comes to throwing out votes in a county or maybe even a whole state that were polluted by fraud, it’s not throwing them out that “disenfranchises” the people who voted legally.  Those people were disenfranchised by the illegal votes.  And counting their votes along with the illegal ones, does not restore their “franchise.”  That was lost when the illegal votes were mixed in.  And it’s not necessary to show that the illegal votes in any one precinct or county would be enough to change the results.  It’s a cumulative effect.  There is evidence of hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal votes, and of legal votes that were switched…

    The fraud doesn’t have to happen in every state, either.  It’s sufficient to change the results in a few states, and the results in those states may be changed by cheating in certain large cities…

    • #51
  22. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    If you’re going to claim that the legislatures only decide “the people vote” and that’s it, that’s an interesting claim/assertion but I haven’t heard of any other support for it legally. It might be arguable that an elections supervisor might determine how many polling locations there can be, but that wouldn’t be in violation of the legislature unless the legislature had determined a number and the elections supervisor changed that without authorization.

    On the other hand, if the legislature has determined what degree of signature verification is required for absentee ballots, for example, and the elections supervisor or someone else changed THAT, without legislative authority, how is that not a violation of “the state legislatures shall determine…” etc?

    And then you get to when even if the elections supervisor or governor or whoever, usurps legislative authority, and you say “if there are disputes, then the courts get involved” which is all nice unless you have courts that won’t do their jobs.

    No. What I am saying is that I think we are conflating two distinct clauses of the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 provides that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Article II, Section 1 states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

    So, we have two different clauses at issue. The state legislatures determine both the manner of elections and how Electors are appointed. Again, each state now appoints their Electors based upon the outcome of a statewide election, which is conducted in the same manner as the elections for Senators and Representatives. The main point I’m trying to make, though, is that the manner of conducting the elections is a question of state law. As far as I know, every state allows for local election officials to administer the election under the rules the legislature established. There is also a statewide official or commission that certifies the result. 

    All this is to say that the legislature sets the rules, that does not give the legislature carte blanche to pick winners or losers. As for your hypotheticals, it all depends on each state’s rules and statutes. Some give officials leeway or discretion in determining certain aspects of the process. Some don’t. You can’t make blanket statements on it. As for the courts, I think you give them far too little credit. Even when a district court screws up, as happened in Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS stepped in and corrected it. You may not like it, but I think the system worked.

    • #52
  23. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Just for starters, read up about the audit of the voting machines used in Michigan. There are strong indications that a large number of votes legitimately cast for Trump were switched to Biden by the voting and vote-counting systems.

    So, THOSE aren’t “illegal” votes, in the sense you seem to mean. They were cast legally, by people legally allowed to vote. And then the votes were switched.

    And then you have MILLIONS of ballots just sent out to addresses on voter registration rolls that haven’t been kept clean for DECADES, deliberately on the part of Democrats. And widespread ballot harvesting, which is even inexplicably legal in some places…

    Also, as I’ve pointed out before but apparently need to repeat, if it comes to throwing out votes in a county or maybe even a whole state that were polluted by fraud, it’s not throwing them out that “disenfranchises” the people who voted legally. Those people were disenfranchised by the illegal votes. And counting their votes along with the illegal ones, does not restore their “franchise.” That was lost when the illegal votes were mixed in. And it’s not necessary to show that the illegal votes in any one precinct or county would be enough to change the results. It’s a cumulative effect. There is evidence of hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal votes, and of legal votes that were switched…

    The fraud doesn’t have to happen in every state, either. It’s sufficient to change the results in a few states, and the results in those states may be changed by cheating in certain large cities…

    I looked at the Michigan audit. If I understand it correctly, the problem is an astonishingly high error rate that is built into the Dominion software/systems. So why has it only been found in one county? Dominion machines were used throughout Georgia, yet the hand recount verified the initial canvas almost perfectly. With a 68% error rate, Georgia’s results would be impossible.

    Again, tell me who voted illegally. Which people were unqualified to vote in the election, but nonetheless voted and had their votes counted? I am sure that they are out there. But not in the scale you claim. Sending out millions of ballots and/or applications may be unwise, but did those ballots/applications get fraudulently returned?

    The only votes that should be thrown out are those which were cast illegally. Throwing out votes because you don’t like the process by which they were cast is absurd. The burden is to prove that the votes were not valid or that the person casting the vote was ineligible. I don’t see that evidence.

    • #53
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    All this is to say that the legislature sets the rules, that does not give the legislature carte blanche to pick winners or losers. As for your hypotheticals, it all depends on each state’s rules and statutes. Some give officials leeway or discretion in determining certain aspects of the process. Some don’t. You can’t make blanket statements on it.

    And when those officials overstep their authority in violation of what the legislature determined, then what?  Take it to court?  That’s what they did, and at least in some cases the courts – including/especially SCOTUS – refused to undertake their responsibility.

    As for the courts, I think you give them far too little credit. Even when a district court screws up, as happened in Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS stepped in and corrected it. You may not like it, but I think the system worked.

    Except for Pennsylvania, and the Texas case, and…

     

    • #54
  25. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    All this is to say that the legislature sets the rules, that does not give the legislature carte blanche to pick winners or losers. As for your hypotheticals, it all depends on each state’s rules and statutes. Some give officials leeway or discretion in determining certain aspects of the process. Some don’t. You can’t make blanket statements on it.

    And when those officials overstep their authority in violation of what the legislature determined, then what? Take it to court? That’s what they did, and at least in some cases the courts – including/especially SCOTUS – refused to undertake their responsibility.

    As for the courts, I think you give them far too little credit. Even when a district court screws up, as happened in Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS stepped in and corrected it. You may not like it, but I think the system worked.

    Except for Pennsylvania, and the Texas case, and…

    Refused to undertake their responsibility? I’m sorry, but we just disagree. SCOTUS has been right on each of the cases brought. Even the most recent cases in Wisconsin, which I’ve paid closer attention to, were meritless. Which Pennsylvania case was wrong? I understand the issue with the constitutional amendment, but that was an issue in 2019, too. You can’t wait until after the election in 2020 to challenge it. That is a long-standing legal doctrine. 

    As for the Texas case, it was pure bull excrement and all 9 justices knew it. Texas does not have standing to challenge another state’s election laws. It can’t. If it does, our entire system of dual sovereignty and federalism is ruined. 

    • #55
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    I looked at the Michigan audit. If I understand it correctly, the problem is an astonishingly high error rate that is built into the Dominion software/systems. So why has it only been found in one county?

    Just for starters, as far as I’ve seen/heard/read, only one county has had the machines checked in that way.  Judges in other areas seem to demand proof of fraud IN ADVANCE before allowing investigation.

    Unless I’ve missed something, the 68% rate is not itself built-in, but the ability to create that situation is in their systems.  The actual rate can be adjusted as needed.

    And I wouldn’t expect to find a 68% rate everywhere the machines were used.  I would even expect, for example, for the rate to have possibly been adjusted upwards during the course of the election if they saw that the actual vote was going “too much” for Trump; more than they had anticipated…  Or they might have set the rate higher to start with because they expected more turnout for Trump in that county than elsewhere…

    I wouldn’t necessarily expect the same behavior in other states, either.  Having everything appear fine in other states helps to shield locations where things were being manipulated.  And no manipulation may have been introduced at all in counties/states that were going to be heavily for Biden anyway.  Adding more Biden votes there would be unnecessary, and since it’s an electoral system not nationwide popular vote, adding Biden votes in states/counties that Biden would win anyway, doesn’t help; and again, leaving those places alone helps to shield their manipulation in other locations.

    • #56
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    Again, tell me who voted illegally. Which people were unqualified to vote in the election, but nonetheless voted and had their votes counted? I am sure that they are out there. But not in the scale you claim. Sending out millions of ballots and/or applications may be unwise, but did those ballots/applications get fraudulently returned?

    There have been documented cases of many mailed-out ballots being returned, according to logged dates/postmarks/etc, on the day after they were sent out; on the same day they were sent out; and even BEFORE they were sent out.  There have also been reports of batches of mailed ballots being “returned” in their exact numerical order.  All of those situations are, essentially, impossible.

    • #57
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    The only votes that should be thrown out are those which were cast illegally. Throwing out votes because you don’t like the process by which they were cast is absurd. The burden is to prove that the votes were not valid or that the person casting the vote was ineligible. I don’t see that evidence.

    That can come down to a situation I’ve described before, where you – or a judge, or whatever – expects to be presented with stacks of ballots each marked “I Am Fraudulent” and signed and notarized by the perpetrators.

    This is also impossible, for a variety of different situations, perhaps especially for absentee/mail-in ballots  because once the ballot is separated from the envelope that is SUPPOSED TO have a valid signature and postmark, it cannot be traced.

    • #58
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    You can’t wait until after the election in 2020 to challenge it. That is a long-standing legal doctrine. 

    If they say – as I believe the PA Supreme Court did – that you can’t challenge BEFORE the election because there’s no “damage” and hence no “standing,” and you can’t challenge AFTER the election because it’s “too late,” then what is your solution?

    As for the Texas case, it was pure bull excrement and all 9 justices knew it. Texas does not have standing to challenge another state’s election laws. It can’t. If it does, our entire system of dual sovereignty and federalism is ruined. 

    General election laws that affect only the particular state are different than an election with national import such as POTUS.  Texas and the other states are affected by that as well, explicitly via the Constitution not just the made-up ways that some agencies use “interstate commerce” etc.  And remember, the other states weren’t calling on PA to follow some other state’s election law.  They were calling on PA to follow PA’s election law, as determined by the PA legislature which is what the Constitution says.

    • #59
  30. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Die Hard is a Christmas movie. It takes place at a Christmas Party, John McLean is visiting because of Christmas. The entire plot of the movie is driven by Christmas – substitute any other holiday into the plot, and the movie fails.

    The worst Christmas themed tv special ever has to be “Star Wars Christmas Special” I think aired once in 1978, and has been effectively memory holed by LucasFilm, I think there are a few bootleg versions on YouTube.

    I didnt grow up in a cable home – until we got a dish in the 80s, TV wasnt really part of Christmas for us. The stuff like the Charlie Brown Christmas Special, would be on the weeks before Christmas. But Christmas day, the TV was generally off. IF someone thought of it, we might tune in the Queen’s Christmas address, but mostly nobody thought of it. Latter in the evening when the youngsters where played out and the adults had to wait for alcohol to evaporate from the blood stream – the TV might be turned on.

    Election results – like anything else that is reported by the media – must make sense to our own experiences to be believed. The real problem here is that they dont make sense. 

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.