patrick.net

Huh, that video won't play for me.

Patrick says

Huh, that video won't play for me.

enable javascript for imasdk.googleapis.com (That usually gets the Rumble vids going for me).

Patrick I think you are talking about vaccines.

If somebody wants to live in the boonies and not be vaccinated that's their business. But if they want to come to my house, they better not bring polio.

I think most people agree its ok for people not to be vaccinated if they are in a shack in the mountains, and aren't going to be mixing with people. And I think most people agree that a private house or club can set inclusion requirements like vaccine. Do we agree up to that point?

So really the controversy is things like schools and employers, where you don't technically have to be there if you don't want, but it is pretty impactful if you are excluded.

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit, maturity and impact of both the disease and the vaccine. For example if we had a lot of smallpox, high death rate, high impact disease and a mature vaccine, I support applying such mandates as a requirement for attending schools and places that are controversial. Mist people will want that and the few who don't can be excluded from that setting.
On the other hand, if the disease impact is lower, or the efficacy and maturity of the vaccine is lower (like flu which has lower severity and lower efficacy of the vaccine) I don't support such mandates.

Your question is really about COVID. I got the vaccine. And I also got COVID (and lived) So I'd bin that with the lower severity less effective category and would not want to mandate the vaccine for schools. But again this is a sliding scale, and these decisions are always controversial. I do know someone who died of COVID, a co worker, and I do not agree with the characterization that it is a low risk disease... Just lower than smallpox and polio etc.

Patrick I have also seen some of your comments on this topic which I regard as over the top... Hanging people etc.... So while I actually agree with you on the point of mandates, I think your position is missing the nuance of risk benefit analysis and is pretty stark rhetoric.

mell says

the only way forward is to adopt stringent voter id laws with in person id-verified voting with paper ballots only to prevent cheating in the future and restore trust in fair elections. The fact that democrats oppose this underscores they have been and are actively cheating.

This

People united, how will this address the concerns Patrick raised in his chart above? If you believe that is fraud, how do ids at the voting booth fix that?

I don't really have a problem with ids at voting booths, but I think there is a reason why this is the item that t GOP folks focus on it, and that's because it comes with the side benefit of disproportionately excluding low income folks who don't drive... It's all in the margins either way.

But it won't fix the concerns Patrick raised even if you do it.

In 2020, Biden was a bumbling, stumbling fool with Dr. Jill's finger in his mouth. He couldn't even fill a high school gym for a campaign 'rally.' Kommiela Harris was even worse.
Her poll numbers prior to dropping out of the primary ended up below 3%. No one liked her. The Biden/Harris ticket was probably the worst in modern history.

Yet, we're asked to believe that Biden actually received 81 MILLION votes, almost 16 MILLION more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016??

Sure he did.

How come I walked to the polling place my whole life?

No ID is okay with me if they use facial recognition like US Customs and Border Patrol use now.

Vote fraud by mail is absurd.
Ballots should be paper and scanned.

Patrick says

I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.

If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.

But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.

It is impossible not to offend a leftist when speaking the truth.

RayAmerica, if your assertion is that it can not be true that people voted for biden because you don't like him, I'm sorry but you are wrong. You are extrapolating from a sample size of one. You may not be talking to the cross section of people who voted for him very often. But I voted for him.

If you cocoon yourself in an echo chamber, things outside of the echo chamber will seem absurd. But they aren't.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

Maybe a secretary can be corrupt, sure... But not 50.

How about just the four swing states that determined the outcome? Still impossible?

And even then, the government officials do not have to be corrupt except to the extent of allowing drop box voting and voting software from China, eg:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

The NYTimes? Paywall for garbage! Give us a break from obvious propaganda. No one said 50 Secstates were corrupt. If you are interested and are obviously not (bot programmer rules) here is some solid information. Also get a grip we are talking about election fraud not voter fraud.

https://electionfraud20.org/

DeficitHawk says

how will this address the concerns Patrick raised in his chart above?

The concern that “election deniers” have is that the votes counted in several swing states might not be legit. For a vote to be legitimate it must be cast by the voter under their own will and volition, it must be securely handled in accordance with local election laws (most locales only allow family members to transport ballots and/or limit the number of ballots that can be transported by third parties ( other than postal carriers which are exempt from that particular rule). Also each voter only gets one vote, and dead people cannot vote.

Requiring in person voting with either ID or some other proof of residence which could be supported by a reliable witness who is also registered to vote would restore integrity to the system. Mailing ballots out to voters who DID NOT request the ballots (which happened in 2020 for the first time in American history to my knowledge) destroys any integrity or credibility to the votes counted in those jurisdictions. Furthermore and votes carried by vote mules who visited multiple drop sites in swing states also undermines any legitimacy of the vote totals in those jurisdictions. Ultimately it is the voters whose votes were nullified by malfeasance that were injured by the vote crimes. The voters would maybe have had standing with the Supreme Court. But to my knowledge no voters spent the time and money to investigate the fraud and hire lawyers to argue that they were disenfranchised.

But if there was transparency in the process, and adherence to one vote per voter verified by proof of identity at the polling site (could even be a neighbor vouching for a neighbor, in the past voting locations were more prevalent and staffed by people who knew you which is the way it should be) then I don’t think the fraud that we think happened would be possible.

But peopleunited, no matter if you show ID and mail or in person or whatever, you still have to count the votes, either by humans with a ledger, or with counting machines. And then those counts have to get added and aggregated.

In the process of adding and aggregating, that's where the chart Patrick showed gets made. ID or no ID, mailed or in person, that lack of trust in the election officials to count and add remains.

All I'm saying is that the focus on voter id is sort of a red herring because it doesn't address the core mistrust, but I also think people hype it because of politically motivated fringe benefit.

I vote by mail every time. It's easier for me. I it's a paper ballot, but I can mail it or drop it off at my convenience. I know they received it. (I can't know with current system if they counted it right)

Like I said, I don't have a problem with voter id, I can go either way on that. BUT I am sensitive to the tactics used here by hyping that particular item even when it doesn't solve the underlying concerns, and the reason for it is politically motivated.

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

Maybe be people are stealing them out of some grandma's mailbox and resubmitting them. Nit could happen. But I doubt this is a widespread occurrence, but you clearly think differently.

DeficitHawk says

But I voted for him.

Why? Was it his promised policies like ending the fossil fuel industry? Or did you vote for Biden because you believed the propaganda that Hunter's laptop was Russian misinformation?

Did you vote against Trump and not for Biden at all?

DeficitHawk says

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

Maybe be people are stealing them out of some grandma's mailbox and resubmitting them. Nit could happen. But I doubt this is a widespread occurrence, but you clearly think differently.

It seems that everything you just said were your words not mine.

There were many millions more votes counted in 2020. I believe that a lot of them were legitimate, but enough of them may have been fraudulent to make a difference in the outcome.

Additionally I believe that voting is a right, but ballots should not be spoon fed and mailed to your home (unless you go through the process of requesting and following the rules of absentee voting )

The underlying concern is that the votes that were counted are not an accurate accounting of legitimate legal votes.

But for me the concern is larger than that. The FBI colluded with Twitter, Facebook and big media to bury the Hunter laptop evidence that revealed the depravity and criminal actions of the Biden family right before the election. This alone could have changed the outcome by keeping voters ignorant of their crimes.

I have a strong dislike of Trump due to the divisive and inflammatory nature of his rhetoric. I think it is counterproductive to the unity of our country, and not how a leader should behave. I don't try to call people names and humiliate them, and I want my leaders to be a better example than I am for discourse and consensus finding in the modern world.

Biden isn't the most inspiring candidate, I'll be honest.

Policy wise, I'm probably 60% agree with Biden and the left and 40% agree with Trump and the right... Or maybe I can say I most often wish there was an in-between policy. Funny I never thought trump's policies were that much more extreme than other republicans... But the divisiveness of rhetoric is a whole different level.

The election denier stuff sort of adds on top of my previous distaste for trump, because I think it is unamerican to promote the narrative he is promoting. I think he does not respect democracy unless he can be the winner. I don't think his narrative is true, and I don't think he thinks its true either. I have no proof of what he thinks honestly, but that is my summary judgement of his character based on his rhetoric.

I think it needs to be said that our government structure is not a Democracy, and the continued bleating of “our Democracy” is something that we need to educate on. We have a Constitutional Republic, with representatives. The representatives being a democratic component, of the overall republic structure.

ForcedTQ you are right, I was using democracy incorrectly. We are a republic. I really meant that we have a rules based, vote based representative system, and I don't think Mr trump respects it unless he gets to be the winner.

Of course if we did use straight up democratic vote for president, we'd be in Hillarys 2nd term right now. Hah!

DeficitHawk says

All I'm saying is that the focus on voter id is sort of a red herring because it doesn't address the core mistrust, but I also think people hype it because of politically motivated fringe benefit

That's not true. You can easily verify that your vote was counted correctly, there are plenty of ways to achieve that while maintaining a good enough level of anonymity. If you preserve all the ballots, audits are trivial. The main problem besides straight out rigging is ballot harvesting and submitting illegal/extra ballots, which is much easier to disguise and harder to prove than straight rigging. Voter ID will fix this. The same person cannot vote twice and has to be an eligible citizen in the first place. Easy. Done.

DeficitHawk says

I don't try to call people names and humiliate them, and I want my leaders to be a better example than I am for discourse and consensus finding in the modern world.

This is disingenuous imo and typical left playbook again. Is Trump brash, narcissistic and arrogant, a blowhard at times? Sure. But you'd rather be called a name by Trump without consequences than being called racist, ableist, anti transgenderist and all the fuck the left is deliberately calling people, and with the demand for consequences such as losing their business, job, career etc, and even codifying laws and punishment for made up bullshit such as 'hate speech'. In short you cannot complain rightfully about Trumps rhetoric without condemning the whole Democrat party's rhetoric and vile attempts at passing unconstitutional commie laws to violently oppress people they call "racists" etc. If you're fine with that, you have to be fine with Trumps - who never passed a single law restricting someone's civil liberty - "divisive" rhetoric aka blowhard locker room talk.

How do you verify if your vote was counted correctly without giving up anonymity?

I'd like to see a system that allows for making sure your.vote was counted as cast, and allow auditing that extra votes were not cast, but not give up anonymity.

There was an apologist for government labor unions in California on Patrick.net who kinda got bullied away.

DeficitHawk says

How do you verify if your vote was counted correctly without giving up anonymity?

I'd like to see a system that allows for making sure your.vote was counted as cast, and allow auditing that extra votes were not cast, but not give up anonymity.

You get a number and can look up how your vote was counted by number, and even trigger a recount by number. There should not be more numbers than eligible voters per county, slightly less if you account for those not registered and not voting. As long as those processing the ballots verify your ID they only need to deal with numbers. Good enough anonymity.

I'll be offline for the next few hours but will return.

mell says

You get a number and can look up how your vote was counted by number

There is a hazard with that, namely that your boss or wife may demand to see you vote, knowing that you can look it up.

Maybe people should a real number, and a fake number they give to people making such demands. But that adds complexity, which is the enemy of transparency.

B.A.C.A.H. says

There was an apologist for government labor unions in California on Patrick.net who kinda got bullied away.

Right, I'm trying prevent such bullying by prohibiting personal insults, but maybe that's not enough.

Patrick says

mell says

You get a number and can look up how your vote was counted by number

There is a hazard with that, namely that your boss or wife may demand to see you vote, knowing that you can look it up.

Maybe people should a real number, and a fake number they give to people making such demands. But that adds complexity, which is the enemy of transparency.

I don't get that hazard. Nobody has any right by law to demand to see how you vote, so you don't comply. In fact you divorce/separate if it's your partner and sue if it's your boss.

A number like a stub from the ballast will let you check. But if there is a discrepancy, you have no proof and you will be told you don't remember how you voted. I think some sort of reciept is needed, maybe with a hash of the votes and some key that couldn't be altered..

And while you can check that not more votes exist than voters, you can't check if the intended people were the voters vs intercepted ballots. Even just a ripped ticket It would be better than we have now though. But is there a complete solution?

I guess anonymity to the wife or the mob boss waiting outside might get sacrificed. Ok now I'm getting in my car to drive 4 hours will check back later.

DeficitHawk says

I don't know who piles up the blue votes here and th red votes there and feeds them into a machine at different times, or this strongly blue district vs that strongly red district get tallied and added in at different times. No don't have an explanation to every glitch in those charts. But there are sensible explanations that don't involve fraud, and the people who oversee the process attest that there wasn't fraud.

But I have this time series from the NYTimes election website that shows a hockey stock. And a screen grab from NBC New showing votes going backwards. I don't believe these sources for any other news, but this is for realz! I have yet to see a voting time series from a secretary of states election results page that shows the aforementioned behavior. Anybody?

DeficitHawk says

I have a strong dislike of Trump due to the divisive and inflammatory nature of his rhetoric.

I don't think Trump has ever been nearly as divisive and inflammatory as Biden was in his obviously Nazi-inspired speech about MAGA:

PeopleUnited says

But for me the concern is larger than that. The FBI colluded with Twitter, Facebook and big media to bury the Hunter laptop evidence that revealed the depravity and criminal actions of the Biden family right before the election. This alone could have changed the outcome by keeping voters ignorant of their crimes.

Right, it seems obvious to me that the FBI is not at all impartial law enforcement, but is in fact committing crimes on behalf of the Democrats.

I'm sure it's justified by reasoning that it was necessary to destroy democracy in order to save it.

DeficitHawk says

I guess people united thinks people are printing or procuring extra ballots which they fill out and deposit.

In California, you are able to print your own ballot at home. Printing extra ballots is simply a matter of changing the number printed.

I assume other Democrat-majority states also allow ballot printing at home.

This should never be allowed imho, because it is an open invitation to fraud. You just need to find the names of people who are not likely to vote because they are, say, in nursing homes or recently dead or haven't voted in years, and then the odds your fraudulent ballot will be caught and rejected are pretty much near zero.

FredH says

The NYTimes? Paywall for garbage! Give us a break from obvious propaganda.

@FredH I referred to the NY Times to prove that even the most partisan of newspapers has to admit the truth sometimes.

FredH says

It is impossible not to offend a leftist when speaking the truth.

@DeficitHawk says he is a Democrat and is apparently not offended yet. Not that Democrat and leftist are identical, but there is substantial overlap.

DeficitHawk says

I think most people agree its ok for people not to be vaccinated if they are in a shack in the mountains, and aren't going to be mixing with people. And I think most people agree that a private house or club can set inclusion requirements like vaccine. Do we agree up to that point?

Actually no. First of all, no one has the right to know your medical history at all, and to demand it violates HIPAA, not to mention basic human decency. "Inject this or you can't be anywhere near me" is the very opposite of tolerant peaceful co-existence. It's frankly Nazi.

Secondly we were lied to about the Wuhan Virus vaccine (I strongly prefer the original virus name as used in the media before the woke crowd suppressed it.)

Biden lied to America point blank: "If you get this vaccine you will not catch the virus." Knowing this was a lie, why would you now believe anything else about the vaxx?

DeficitHawk says

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit

I disagree. There is never, under any circumstances, justification for demanding that anyone be injected with anything and imposing penalties if they are not.

I think the fallacy of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the core evil of Communism, and of modern times in general. The train-track thought experiment is invalid. You never know what the results of deliberately killing an innocent person will be. No innocent person should be deliberately killed under any real-world circumstances.

DeficitHawk says

Patrick I have also seen some of your comments on this topic which I regard as over the top... Hanging people etc.... So while I actually agree with you on the point of mandates, I think your position is missing the nuance of risk benefit analysis and is pretty stark rhetoric.

I disagree there too, and think hanging is a very mild punishment for the utter and abject evil of mandated global injections of ineffective experimental products with no long-term safety record, for the profit of Pfizer et al, deliberately stoking fear of a quite mild virus, to set people against each other.

I cannot think of any worse evil committed against the whole world at any point in history.

@DeficitHawk

EBGuy says

enable javascript for imasdk.googleapis.com (That usually gets the Rumble vids going for me).

Ah, I have a complete ban on my laptop of all Google domains. I prefer life that way.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit

I disagree. There is never, under any circumstances, justification for demanding that anyone be injected with anything and imposing penalties if they are not.

I think the fallacy of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the core evil of Communism, and of modern times in general. The train-track thought experiment is invalid. You never know what the results of deliberately killing an innocent person will be. No innocent person should be deliberately killed under any real-world circumstances.

Since you do not believe in Democracy (because the majority would have voted to have everyone vaccinated), it would be interesting to know your core beliefs on who should be able to set the rules for society.

Misc says

Since you do not believe in Democracy (because the majority would have voted to have everyone vaccinated), it would be interesting to know your core beliefs on who should be able to set the rules for society.

That's a deliberately personal comment, trolling in order to inflame, but I won't mark it personal.

Democracy does not and never did mean that the minority can be oppressed by the majority. It means "majority rule, minority rights". Those rights are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and arguably in the Nuremberg Code as well.

As cisTits put it, we don't have a (direct) democracy, and that is a feature, not a bug. It was planned that way, as is documented in The Federalist Papers.

The public sets the rules for society by electing representatives to create and enforce those rules, but only within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.