Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

[Flash]

Then maybe you can explain what happened in Ohio.

Sure. Bush won. The exit polls over sampled females who vote more Democratic. Actual votes trump exit polls. Because some Republican had an interest in the voting machine company is not evidence of any cheating and none was found. One side wins and one side loses---there is not always a conspiracy.

I've heard the right claim the 2018 win in the House was due to illegal immigrants voting. That is the same caliber as the Ohio voting machine conspiracy--both without evidence.

 

[Flash]

And why would that be? Because Conservatives have prevented any election security from even getting a vote in the Senate. Now, why would they do that? Either because they are trying to rig the election, or setting the stage to de-legitimize them once they lose bigly.

What will your excuse be if a Democrat wins? How will cheating account for their victory? What? It will be an honest election if Democrats win and Russians did not influence the vote?

That is why I dread the outcome---because we will hear such BS from the losing side. There will be crazy claims we cannot even imagine today.

 

[LV426]

Sure. Bush won. The exit polls over sampled females who vote more Democratic. Actual votes trump exit polls. Because some Republican had an interest in the voting machine company is not evidence of any cheating and none was found. One side wins and one side loses---there is not always a conspiracy.

So...you think that's all A-OK. Got it.

I've heard the right claim the 2018 win in the House was due to illegal immigrants voting.

Yet no evidence exists and there's no conflict of interest there, but there's plenty of evidence of voting shenanigans in OH and you just admitted that the Republicans have a conflict of interest when it comes to the voting machines there.

 

[Earl]

What's "fake" is the particular leftist interpretation of the Constitution at issue.

Whether it is the emoluments clause or the commerce clause or the general welfare clause or their ignoring that the Constitution establishes a republic, not a democracy (and what that both demands and excludes) and of course, the 2nd Amendment, one can be sure that whatever conclusion a leftist comes to about the US Constitution, it is a misrepresentation and an outright attempt to twist the Constitution into doing what it expressly forbids.

Liberals, by their very nature find any constitution an anathema to their fluid, evolving "values", thus it must be stomped out, violated, dismissed and discarded.

.

Indeed.

 

[LV426]

What will your excuse be if a Democrat wins?

Turnout.

How will cheating account for their victory?

It won't so long as there's high turnout, which there was last year in record numbers, so there doesn't appear to be any reason why next year won't see the same.

What? It will be an honest election if Democrats win and Russians did not influence the vote?

Well, Russia's going to influence the vote because Conservatives refuse to secure our elections. WHY?

High turnout, like there was in 2018, should outdo any shenanigans Conservatives are looking to pull with their Russian allies.

That is why I dread the outcome---because we will hear such BS from the losing side. There will be crazy claims we cannot even imagine today.

Well, if Conservatives agreed to secure our elections, this wouldn't be an issue. So why are they refusing to secure our elections?

 

[LV426]

I never said most of the country is moderate and centrist.

So then if most of the country isn't moderate or centrist, and we know they're not Conservative, then that means...

 

[LV426]

Examples of how they are not representative
VT: 94.2% white
MA: 81.7% white
U. S.: 76.8% white

Well, Democrats have not won a majority of white voters in Presidential elections since 1964.

 

[LV426]

Agreed. But Warren or Sanders were not the Democratic candidate.

No, one of those nominees was a Kenyan Muslim Socialist.

 

[LV426]

So you think Warren or Sanders could win a U. S. Senate election in most other states??

Yes.

The deploreables? But he did care about those 47% when MA elected him governor?

Did he? Or has he always carried contempt for the 47%?

Nope. It was not my judgment but your lack of understanding. I was saying how hatred toward others got Trump elected and it could happen again.

In this case, most people hate Trump and want to see him removed. What got Trump elected was hatred...hatred of blacks, Jews, women, liberals, that Russia fostered through its disinformation (see: Volume 1 of Mueller Report, which you still haven't read).

But the thing is, you can only run on that once, and now that you're in office, need to find something else to generate enthusiasm like your record. For Trump, his record sucks. And he knows it.

 

[LV426]

As I clearly told you at that time, it had nothing to do with the mid-term election.

Of course it did! It was in the midterm election year. It was the six or so months leading up to it.

About the mid-term I said the president's party almost always loses seats and that is a better way to predict than any other factors.

Always lose seats by a 10 million vote margin? The margin of victory for Democrats in 2018 was wider than any time going all the way back to 1974.

Then you asked if they always lose 40 seats and I gave five examples showing large variations and you tried to claim those 5 examples weren't representative of all mid-term elections

Because in two of them, the President's Party gained seats.

You were the one who moved those goalposts, not me.

And the seat totals are less important than the vote margin, which is what I've always been talking about with regard to 2018.

that was the whole point, there are wide variations in the number of seats lost and 2-3 examples of seats gained.

So it was you who moved the goalposts from "always" to "almost always", not me.

She then committed suicide.

In Alien 3, and because she had one gestating inside her. Remember, at the end of Alien 3 when she fell backward into the molten pit? Why did she wait until the end of the third movie to do that?

 

[Into the Night]

And why would that be? Because Conservatives have prevented any election security from even getting a vote in the Senate. Now, why would they do that? Either because they are trying to rig the election, or setting the stage to de-legitimize them once they lose bigly.

No, that would be the Democrats...in the House.

 

[domer76]

No, that would be the Democrats...in the House.

The courts cannot change the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Yet no evidence exists and there's no conflict of interest there, but there's plenty of evidence of voting shenanigans in OH and you just admitted that the Republicans have a conflict of interest when it comes to the voting machines there.

There is no evidence of any vote changes or cheating in 2004. Your claim of "plenty of evidence" is not true.

There are both Democrats and Republicans on the boards of companies that make voting machines whose companies depend on reliable and honest vote counting. Based on your premise every company has a conflict of interest.

 

[Flash]

It always has been binding upon the States.

If the 5th Amendment was always binding on the states then all states would be required to use grand juries which they do not as the Supreme Court ruled in Hurtado v California (1884).

Double jeopardy and self-incrimination did not bind the states until the 1960s. The fact that states were not bound by these protections proves incorporation did not occur until 1964 Malloy v Hogan and 1969 (Benton v Maryland).

 

[Flash]

Of course it did! It was in the midterm election year. It was the six or so months leading up to it.

Since Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 any backlash would not have applied to a mid-term election as I made very clear at the time--you must have forgotten.

Always lose seats by a 10 million vote margin? The margin of victory for Democrats in 2018 was wider than any time going all the way back to 1974.

Nobody said the president almost always loses seats by a 10 million vote margin in mid-terms You are creating another straw man. I said the president's party almost always loses seats in mid-term elections--a clearly true statement. The size of that margin is irrelevant to the fact that the president's party loses seats.

Adding irrelevant, extraneous facts does not mean my statement any less true. It just means you are looking to quibble over trivia.

Because in two of them, the President's Party gained seats.

You were the one who moved those goalposts, not me.

And the seat totals are less important than the vote margin, which is what I've always been talking about with regard to 2018.

In 2 the president's party gained seats to show how rare that was. That is not changing the goal posts--it proves my point about the president's party almost always losing seats.

 

[Into the Night]

If the 5th Amendment was always binding on the states then all states would be required to use grand juries which they do not as the Supreme Court ruled in Hurtado v California (1884).

Yes it was. The 5th amendment does not require grand juries.

Double jeopardy and self-incrimination did not bind the states until the 1960s.

Yes it did.

The fact that states were not bound by these protections proves incorporation did not occur until 1964 Malloy v Hogan and 1969 (Benton v Maryland).

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

 

[CFM]

The courts cannot change the Constitution.

Every time they expand the authority of the federal government beyond what the Constitution grants the courts do that very thing.

 

[CFM]

Any court that expands the authority of the federal government beyond what the Constitution allows they change it.

 

[LV426]

There is no evidence of any vote changes or cheating in 2004. Your claim of "plenty of evidence" is not true.

No conspiracy theorist, and no fan of John Kerry's, the author nevertheless found the Ohio polling results impossible to swallow: Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2005/03/hitchens200503

New court filing reveals how the 2004 Ohio presidential election was hacked
https://freepress.org/article/new-c...ow-2004-ohio-presidential-election-was-hacked

Diebold Indicted: Its spectre still haunts Ohio elections
https://columbusfreepress.com/article/diebold-indicted-its-spectre-still-haunts-ohio-elections

There are both Democrats and Republicans on the boards of companies that make voting machines whose companies depend on reliable and honest vote counting. Based on your premise every company has a conflict of interest.

There are elected officials on the boards of companies that make voting machines? You don't think that's a conflict of interest?

 

[LV426]

Since Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 any backlash would not have applied to a mid-term election as I made very clear at the time--you must have forgotten.

Of course Trump was on the ballot...he campaigned almost every day for Republicans. He held rallies. "Build that wall" was the chant. It was only 11 months ago.

Nobody said the president almost always loses seats by a 10 million vote margin in mid-terms

Right, so you're not taking the right lessons away from what happened last year. If a 10 million vote margin is completely out of the norm, then what does that mean for the 2018 election?

I said the president's party almost always loses seats in mid-term elections--a clearly true statement.

That doesn't add anything to the discussion and isn't even what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is the fact that Conservatism and Trump were roundly hammered at the polls in 2018, and not simply because it was a midterm election. If it was, then the margin would have been in the mean of what it had been for the previous 45 years. But it wasn't. Why?

The size of that margin is irrelevant to the fact that the president's party loses seats.

Seats are gerrymandered, and the total vote margin cannot be ignored. It's why 19 Republicans in the House and Senate have said they're quitting since last November.

Adding irrelevant, extraneous facts does not mean my statement any less true.

Saying apples are fruit is also a true statement, but it's lowering the bar to avoid the details, which is your MO here.

In 2 the president's party gained seats to show how rare that was.

Even more rare? A ten million vote margin.

So first you said they always lose seats, then you changed that to say they "almost always" lose seats. Then you say how it was rare for them to gain seats, even though it happened twice in the last 20 years. The last time there was a 10 million vote margin? 1974.

So which is rarer? The thing that happened twice the last twenty years, or the thing that happened once the last 45?