Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No Jim, I actually don't think he's a racist, he's simply a leftist tool.  I was using his commentary against him to point out the double standard that exists between the left and the right.  The entire party is made up of leftist hypocrites.  He's just the latest one. 

I might want to point out this as well, since you once again decided to chime in on the subject.

Why is it that you saw his posting and gave him a pass?  Was it purposeful on your part, or are you just reticent to call out the left for their regular disgusting characterizations of everyone on the right.  

Maybe you should start watching his postings to police them the way you regularly police those of us on the right.

That might give a modicum of consistency.  

You're my special project dude.  I give everyone a pass, except you!  You and maybe David.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Alfredo Viegas

The definition of fanaticism is holding a view that suffers no challenge and is not persuadable. 

Hi Alfredo:

I see you've met our Richard...

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim, ultimately this whole deal was brought forth by Republicans to thwart the vote. 

Or it was brought by Republicans to support the rule of law. 

How would these alleged Republicans know that the tiny percentage of MN voters who couldn't be bothered to get their votes in on time would skew D anyway?  

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Don’t sweat it, Alfredo. I’ve voted straight Republican since Ronald Reagan, and Richard calls me a leftist Democrat

HI Russ:

I thought you were a commie...

Jim

Originally Posted by Steven Moore

"Another 4 years of Trumpanzees running this country and this movement will gain stronger following."

So I guess James B thinks this is ok that this person gets on here calling us conservatives Trumpanzees !

Why would you think that Steve?  Calling out each and every offensive thing posted here would be a full time job.  For the record I think Trumpanzees is juvenile and like Richard, I think the phrase has a racist tinge.

Still, please don't be so rude as to think that I agree with or endorse each and everything that is posted here that I don't expressly reply to.  Sheesh!  That would take a lot of time!

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Don't expect an answer from him about this Steve.  It is inconvenient to take on the left or their minions.  

Preposterous!  The most recent person I actually "took on" in the forum was David, perhaps the most left wing of all participants.   I sort of took on Rod this morning too concerning the MN litigation.  Rod is certainly left of center, except on Israel and defense of course - real people are complicated, you see.

Consider this:  Neither you nor Steve participated in Rod's Minnesota thread.  According to you two, that can only mean you both agree with Rod!  

How silly it would be for me to draw that conclusion!  Do you guys really think it is persuasive to draw a wrong conclusion from someone's silence???  You're both being ridiculous.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Because this is a Republican tactic in multiple states.

Hi Rod:


The various states have election laws.  The only one I know well is my own.   Ballots must be received by close of business on election day, or the ballots don't count!  That is the law.  If our Secretary of State tried to inject a "postmark by" deadline extension because of Covid, I personally would expect any competent judge to overrule her, because the Secretary of State is not given authority to make, change or overrule the laws.  "Voter suppression" has nothing to do with it.  The law must be enforced as written, if the people don't like the law, they can lobby the legislature to change it.  Heck, in Colorado and I think California, we can change these things directly with a voter initiative.

But there is no way the Secretary of State can unilaterally contradict the legal deadline.  Not for a pandemic, a war, a riot, a hurricane.  Not for anything.

If another state has a duly passed law allowing ballots "postmarked by..." to be counted then fine.  I think it is a stupid law personally, but it must be enforced as enacted.  If the Rs filed a lawsuit to challenge that sort of law, you might have a point.  The only reason I can think of would be voter intimidation.  According to CNN at least, this is not what is happening in MN.

Jim  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Trumptoids throw out ballots of early voters who subsequently die a few days later even if they're Trumptoids:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/31/politics/voter-death-election-count-invs/index.html

Rod, do you think that the duly passed laws of the State of Wisconsin should be ignored just because enforcing the law as written tugs at our heartstrings?  Seriously?

Jim

https://www.axios.com/pennsylvania-biden-underdog-nate-silver-2c1fb6c6-c75f-4cf5-9ee6-d51df1741e2b.html

I sure wouldn't want to attend a packed rally, but the photos from Butler and Braddock PA are impressive.   I am a lot less confident of a Biden win than I was a few weeks ago.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

If the state law originally allows for absentee ballots to be cast by a presumably live voter, then the vote has been cast by a viable human being who is qualified to vote in the election. Wisconsin has a contradiction in the law because they provide for the latter while refusing the latter if the voter expires prior to the date of the election. It's my opinion that since the state permits the process of absentee voting and the voter fulfills that option, then the vote is legally cast and should be counted. It's axiomatic that the voter who votes by absentee ballot will not be present in the poll on election day in any event since the vote has already been cast. Therefore, it should be counted.

Hi Rod:

Yes, it is your opinion, but it is not the law in WI.  You are making an argument for a specific change to WI law.  Fine, that is your prerogative.  According to Google, about 15 states do count the vote of a person who dies after voting absentee, but before the election.  WI is not one of them.  See below, the statute is quite clear.

I am only arguing with you because you act as if the court by following the law is engaging in some sort of aberration.   If the folks in WI don't like the law, they should lobby for a change.  So long as the law is what it is, then any competent judge should enforce the law as written.  Maybe you actually believe that a judge should substitute his or her own opinion if it contradicts the written law?  Some activists feel that way of course, but it is pretty easy to demonstrated how that sort of judicial activism leads to chaos.

This is another great example of the benefits of "originalism" i.e. judges who follow the law as written.

Jim