Despite what you might have heard, not all Muslims are radicals. In fact, only about 10% are*. Of course, if you have 1,000,000 Muslims in your country, that means you have 100,000 radicals.
100,000 radicals is a scarier way of formulating the statement than 10%, no?
Rasmussen is reporting that 47% of the people they polled, including 30% of Democrats, think this election was stolen from Trump. Let's say that's true and that there are roughly 200,000,000 adult Americans out there. That means about 95,000,000 of them think the election was stolen.
Fortunately, only 5% of them are armed radicals. No biggie.
Oooh. That makes 4,750,000 armed radicals. Biggie.
I wonder how open they will be to the Democrats trying to fulfill their pledge to fundamentally transform the country.
If Trump had been declared the winner, the numbers would be the same because the people who designed the election process valued winning more than trust. Also because the press is hopelessly corrupt and they valued Biden winning more than trust. In truth, no one has any idea who won.
On Twitter, someone on the right said, "I'd rather Biden had won an undisputed victory than to see this mess." I completely agree. For me, it's not about who won, it's about the ramifications of having 4,750,000 armed radicals on either side. I'd really like to coast into retirement and not have to wonder which part of the country will be the safest and plan to move there.
I'd like our kids to have peaceful lives and not have to deal with violence in the cities.
This was all perfectly predictable. In fact, someone did predict it and predicted it in public, on the airwaves. The press didn't think it was that big of a deal. Luminaries like Wolf Blitzer sneered at the suggestion that what we're seeing happen is what might happen.
Lots of ordinary Americans were yelling about this before the election. The press didn't listen. Just like they did with the cops, they ignored what we were telling them and are now daring us to do something about it. The cops did do something about their mistreatment and now several blue cities are experiencing crazy increases in crime.
Something tells me some of those 4,750,000 people are going to do something about this, too.
* - I don't have time to look up numbers or links today, so all of that kind of thing is made up stuff. I think I can make the point without real numbers. In fact, I think I'm guessing low on all of them.
I don't know if this will surprise you, but Barr was not being accurate with the findings of the Carter-Baker commission. For example, the commission regards the Oregon system of mail-in voting as having avoided significant fraud. Again, the only reason many Americans distrust the results of the elections is because POTUS and his cronies have been telling them to for the last 5 years.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf
From Section 4.2
While vote by mail appears to increase turnout for local elections, there is no evidence that it significantly expands participation in federal elections.40 Moreover, it raises concerns about privacy, as citizens voting at home may come under pressure to vote for certain candidates, and it increases the risk of fraud. Oregon appears to have avoided significant fraud in its vote-by-mail elections by introducing safeguards to protect ballot integrity, including signature verification. Vote by mail is, however, likely to increase the risks of fraud and of contested elections in other states, where the population is more mobile, where there is some history of troubled elections, or where the safeguards for ballot integrity are weaker.
The case of King County, Washington, is instructive. In the 2004 gubernatorial elections, when two in three ballots there were cast by mail, authorities lacked an effective system to track the number of ballots sent or returned. As a result, King County election officials were unable to account for all absentee ballots. Moreover, a number of provisional ballots were accepted without signature verification.41 The failures to account for all absentee ballots and to verify signatures on provisional ballots became issues in the protracted litigation that followed Washington state’s 2004 gubernatorial election.
Speaking of Attorney General Barr, this just came in 15 minutes ago:
ReplyDelete"Barr: No evidence of fraud that’d change election outcome"
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-elections-william-barr-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d
I saw that, too, Tim. It doesn't matter. Nor does One Brow's comment matter. If it helps, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that in reality, Trump lost even as Republicans gained everywhere else. They guy is a massive jerk.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point.
Trust is an emotional state. It's a cultivated thing. Like I said in the post, plenty of people were screaming before this all went down that they didn't trust mail-in ballots and the Powers That Be went with them anyway. They didn't care whether the results were trusted, they just wanted to win and they figured mail-in ballots gave them the best chance.
Well, now they've "won" and a huge chunk of the population is convinced it was all a fraud. Good luck governing under those conditions.
PS - add in the riots that don't spread Covid like churches do and big name politicians dining with lots of friends while we get threatened with legal action for the same and you end up with a ruling class that has vaporized whatever goodwill they might have had. That's fine if you've got a police state behind you, but these idiots don't.
They don't know how anything works.
Since it's the AP, guessing they did their usual trick of taking half a sentence and torturing it until it gave the story they wanted?
ReplyDeletePoking around, the non-AP-feed stories seem to say that Barr stated in an interview that they have not "uncovered widespread voter fraud that could overturn the election."
It just hit the news yesterday that the FBI had requested evidence.
Which makes it an ongoing investigation.
Attorneys LOVE it when the guy investigating their customer does something as incredibly stupid as announce a conclusion to an ongoing investigation, especially when it's in direct violation of the policy that they just beat to death yesterday where they don't comment on ongoing investigations.
"Despite what you might have heard, not all Muslims are radicals. In fact, only about 10% are*. Of course, if you have 1,000,000 Muslims in your country, that means you have 100,000 radicals."
ReplyDelete'Radical' Moslem -- a Moslem who wants -- as Islam commands -- to behead you;
'Moderate' Moslem -- a Moslem who wants a 'Radical' Moslem to behead you.
"Nor does One Brow's comment matter."
ReplyDeleteWell, obviously.
To me these are the Republican leprechauns. Seventy percent of Republicans thought Obama was not born in the US. Right now Trump's legal team is getting laughed out of every court, often by judges he appointed. They even had to jettison one of their lawyers because they were so delusional. In Georgia you have a Republican governor backing a Republican Secretary of State saying the election was by Hoyle. To say the states need to force everyone to adhere to certain rules based on no evidence that will decrease turnout in order to avoid riling up the lunatic fringe sounds a lot like supine acquiescence.
ReplyDeleteAnd where is all this violence in reaction to the election that you predict?
The results from Pennsylvania are quite suspect. https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/
ReplyDeleteBiden got 34% of the Election Day votes but 77% of the Mail votes. More votes were cast Election Day than mailed in.
Consider that in light of the headline on this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/vote-by-mail.html
The trolls are here to discourage the dissenters. It must mean this blog is a threat that must be suppressed.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe trolls are here to discourage the dissenters. It must mean this blog is a threat that must be suppressed.
I disagree. I think they are doing the best they can, like the rest of us. This blog is an oasis, and K T Cat refuses to let it descend into bickering. I admire that.
Biden got 34% of the Election Day votes but 77% of the Mail votes. More votes were cast Election Day than mailed in.
Republicans encouraged their voters to vote on Election Day, and they did. Democrats encouraged their voters to vote by mail, and they did. Why is that suspect?
Here's a good summary of the problems from the start:
ReplyDeletehttps://townhall.com/columnists/larryoconnor/2020/12/01/if-you-wanted-to-rig-an-election-youd-do-exactly-what-dems-did-in-2020-n2580876?112
It's not that you can or cannot detect fraud, it's that the raw data from the experiment cannot be trusted. Without trust of your data, everything downstream is a waste of time.
With untrustworthy data, no one on Earth has any idea who won the election.
Is it Republican leprechauns? It may be. Was it Democrat theft? It may be. Is it what it looks to be, a Biden win? Maybe. No one can prove anything.
I'm not getting into the details of the stories, so I don't know if this point has been made, but the reason we use private voting booths is to prevent coercion. Mail-in voting has no safeguards there. That means even if you knew the vote came from the legal voter, you have no idea if it was coerced. Yes, this is the way absentee voting has always worked, but it's always been a last resort, not the default.
The raw data is worthless.
Anon: And where is all this violence in reaction to the election that you predict?
ReplyDeleteThat's a rather slender reed to which you're clinging, don't you think? On April 11, 1861, things were still pretty peaceful, too.
My point here is that I don't want to be in the position where I'm saying, "Fortunately, the political violence hasn't begun. Yet."
As a matter of record, however, we had a considerable amount of political violence this summer. As it appears that Biden won, there hasn't been any more. Had he lost, I'm sure there would have been plenty. Again, that's a rather slender reed.
K T Cat,
ReplyDeleteI will agree to not getting down into the details. I will just offer that I could easily write "If you want to rig an election by suppressing the vote, you'd do just want Republicans have done and want to do" and come up with my own dozen things about about equal veracity.
There will never be a method for both encouraging the highest level voter participation and ensuring the absolute minimum of cheating, the two goals need contrary conditions in many ways. This year leaned more towards the former, others have leaned toward the latter.