Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Allan Fritzke]

And what is wrong with the popular vote? One man, one vote....

There is nothing wrong with that.     Just make smaller countries and each city can act as a country and run its own affairs and interact with the other partners.   If 18 states can agree with each other, then they can band together.  Populous states can do likewise and each can have its own constitution and rules.  The populous city states can manufacture the  equipment, cars and trucks and the rural population can buy from them and sell them back food and energy in return!    They can each pay their own taxes to govern themselves, pay for their own healthcare systems and whatever pension plans and government infrastructure they might want to have in place.

If the will of the people is going to want to change the constitution - so be it.   However this has to be negotiated so that all parties agree.  A good starting place is what is there already - the constitution under which the states co-exist already.   It had worked well for hundreds of years and all states had flourished.   As the Republic has evolved,  there seems to be a bigger divide between urban and rural lifestyles and the country may need to divide itself up to keep each part distinct and happy.   You might need to have an EC formed with a common currency and cultural difference recognized.

The major issue comes in equality of wages and taxation.   New York has high taxes, high cost of living and therefore high wages.  That is same in most big cities and their corresponding states.   That does not equate to the rural.    Currently high taxation is causing large companies to flee the city or country and develop in cheaper less costly locations.   The reality is this is why large American corporations are global.   They manufacture goods in China using cheap labor and then sell products at home and transfer the money back out to Tax havens where they pay less tax.   Some of the smaller ones are just moving to states where tax laws are more favorable.   

           

[Allan Fritzke]

No it doesn't make me wonder at all. Trump lost this election not because of Biden but because of himself. Over the past 4 years he made sure that more people wanted him gone than wanted him to stay in power. That's what motivated the high turn out. The majority of the people that voted simply wanted to make sure he would be gone.

I believe that if it had it been any other candidate than Trump, the turnout would not have been so high on either side.

And why should 80 million people have their votes ignored, just because the loser can't accept his loss and makes all sorts of wild claims for which no evidence whatsoever has been produced in any of the courtcases?

So you don't think the addition of mail in voters and the harvest of these votes had anything to do with the numbers?

[Martin Weidmann]

There is nothing wrong with that.     Just make smaller countries and each city can act as a country and run its own affairs and interact with the other partners.   If 18 states can agree with each other, then they can band together.  Populous states can do likewise and each can have its own constitution and rules.  The populous city states can manufacture the  equipment, cars and trucks and the rural population can buy from them and sell them back food and energy in return!    They can each pay their own taxes to govern themselves, pay for their own healthcare systems and whatever pension plans and government infrastructure they might want to have in place.

If the will of the people is going to want to change the constitution - so be it.   However this has to be negotiated so that all parties agree.  A good starting place is what is there already - the constitution under which the states co-exist already.   It had worked well for hundreds of years and all states had flourished.   As the Republic has evolved,  there seems to be a bigger divide between urban and rural lifestyles and the country may need to divide itself up to keep each part distinct and happy.   You might need to have an EC formed with a common currency and cultural difference recognized.

The major issue comes in equality of wages and taxation.   New York has high taxes, high cost of living and therefore high wages.  That is same in most big cities and their corresponding states.   That does not equate to the rural.    Currently high taxation is causing large companies to flee the city or country and develop in cheaper less costly locations.   The reality is this is why large American corporations are global.   They manufacture goods in China using cheap labor and then sell products at home and transfer the money back out to Tax havens where they pay less tax.   Some of the smaller ones are just moving to states where tax laws are more favorable.   
       

Just make smaller countries

Why? By one man one vote it doesn't matter how big the country is.

If 18 states can agree with each other, then they can band together.

Let's get something straight; just because some Republican officials from 18 states joined in a law suit doesn't automatically mean that the population of all those states have agreed to anything. There isn't a single state that is 100% Republican, which means that in all those states there are also Democrats.

If the will of the people is going to want to change the constitution - so be it.   However this has to be negotiated so that all parties agree.

It will never happen. Breaking up the country in two parts? No way, you will never get the population to go along with that. And look what happened in Germany after the war, when they forcefully broke up the country in two parts. It was the will of the people that ultimately brought them back together again.

A good starting place is what is there already - the constitution under which the states co-exist already.

Exactly, the country is not called the United States of America for nothing. It's already a union of reasonably independent states.

But all this, just because the guy you like lost the election? Really?

[Martin Weidmann]

So you don't think the addition of mail in voters and the harvest of these votes had anything to do with the numbers?

No. At least not beyond the fact that mail in vote may have made it easier for some people to vote.

The bottom line is that the majority of voters wanted Trump gone.... A difference of 6 million popular votes is not even close and way too much to claim that voter fraud (which so far has not been proven at all) could account for all those votes.

What makes the entire voter fraud claim pathetic is that Trump isn't claiming that he lost the popular vote due to fraud, because that would mean the election was rigged in the entire country. Instead it's all only about the Electoral College. Despite the fact that other states (in which he won) used similar voting procedures, he's only complaining about states he lost, that, when overturned, could keep him in the White House. If he really believed there has been voter fraud, he should be complaining about all the states that used similar procedures, including those he won. 

[John Iacoletti]

No. It is a strange coincidence you have a divide between rural and urban voters.   If it wasn't for the 4 large cities in those 4 states, things would have ended up differently.  These are like city states (Rome in its time).   It also doesn't take rocket science to figure out why you would like to add  Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states so that you can over rule representation by region (Senate) and have  representation by population in both Senate and House/   Then the population centers can do as it pleases with the rural population.   If  you do that, just eliminate the Senate altogether (1/2 the cost) and run the country by popular vote only as it has no meaning.

Land doesn’t vote — people do.

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah you should never look at how elections are run and question its integrity.

Question away. But if 60 court cases go by and you can’t provide a scintilla of evidence of any widespread fraud that could possibly change the results, then you just might be a sore loser.

As I said before, transparency is important and when you have 74 million voters that lost an election and lots of questions when it was the largest turnout in history and Biden ran campaign from basement and got more votes that Obama - makes you wonder doesn't it?   

Not in the least. Trump cultists don’t understand how many people appreciate a leader who actually takes science seriously. And they also way underestimate how much this man is despised. They are in an orange bubble.

[John Iacoletti]

There is nothing wrong with that.     Just make smaller countries and each city can act as a country and run its own affairs and interact with the other partners.   If 18 states can agree with each other, then they can band together.  Populous states can do likewise and each can have its own constitution and rules.  The populous city states can manufacture the  equipment, cars and trucks and the rural population can buy from them and sell them back food and energy in return!    They can each pay their own taxes to govern themselves, pay for their own healthcare systems and whatever pension plans and government infrastructure they might want to have in place.

Why go through all of this churn? What problem are you trying to solve exactly? That some people in rural states don’t like who got elected President? Some people in cites didn’t like who got elected president in 2016 either.

[John Iacoletti]

So you don't think the addition of mail in voters and the harvest of these votes had anything to do with the numbers?

Are you saying there’s something wrong with a large voter turnout? Should it be more difficult for people to exercise their right to vote?

Also, where was there any vote harvesting?