The Right Side of the News

As long as we're going medieval (which is what Trump's Wall is supposed to be anyway), let's review the subject of medieval walls.Moats weren't intended to be much of a barrier in themselves, but rather part of the defense of the wall. Similar to a glacis, a moat would present an open "field" which the enemy would need to traverse without cover against defensive fire from the wall's defenders. Stocking the moat with critters akin to piranhas would not do much good with the enemy crossing in boats. And once across the moat, the enemy could still scale the walls (eg, with ladders or grappling hooks) -- the only advantage of a moat over an empty field would be to block siege towers, which is also why a glacis would be sloped, usually steeply sloped.So why go through all that trouble with a moat? It was to defend against the real danger to your medieval wall: tunneling. Sappers would tunnel to the wall and dig out a cavern under the wall shored up with timbers like in any mine. Then they'd set fire to that cavern, burn out the shoring timbers, and the wall would collapse providing the enemy a breach to enter the fortress. The purpose of the moat was to prevent that initial tunneling -- it is very difficult to shore up against water.One striking common factor is necessity of defenders on the walls, lots of them, in order to defend the wall. Any section of a wall that is left unmanned or which cannot be defended will fall. The purpose of the star-like layout of a bastion fort (AKA "star fort") is to eliminate all defensive shadows enabling mutual defense of adjacent sections of wall.So for Trump's medieval wall to work, it would have to be heavily manned along its entire length at an even greater cost than for the wall itself, a cost that would never end.

One of the most frustrating things about you is how you have no idea how anything works, much like your Beloved Leader. First, you need to learn about the mechanics of ballot collection and counting, the different kinds of ballots and how they are processed (ie, how they affect the mechanics of ballot collection and counting), and the demographics of who tends to use what kinds ballots.Here is what an old friend from church posted on Facebook explaining why it is that in a close election the more we look into mail-in and provisional ballots the votes seem to change. It's because of the order in which the different kinds of ballots are counted and who is more likely to use those different ballots.BTW, an MSNBC correspondant was at the election center in Santa Ana as the ballots came in. A van would arrive with a voting machine in a case (I assume the one that the booths' machines were connected to). The chip from that machine would be removed and conveyed via pneumatic tube to a central tabulator. All this was done under the direct observation of sheriff deputies who all acted very seriously as they very well should. Here's the link to the MSNBC live video of the process and the incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ZIhk1trc4 -- and after tripping the alarm he runs away trying to look as innocent as possible. It's a hoot.Here is my friend's Facebook post explaining the returns in Orange County, Calif. (OC):

quote:

---

Here's the procedure in OC. The mail-in ballots that are received early are counted before election day, though the mail-in totals are not revealed. Those totals, plus the votes cast at early voting centers, are the ones that are posted a few minutes after the polls close.

​

After that the trucks begin to arrive at the ROV in Santa Ana. The trucks bring the voting machines and paper ballots that were turned in at polling places. As the voting machines come into the ROV, their results are added to the posted results. On election day, the OC ROV generally updates every hour (9 pm, 10 pm, etc.) I think they stop at midnight or 1 am, or perhaps when the last voting machine from the last truck arrives.

​

The next day the OC ROV does something that's somewhat unique among county registrars. The OC ROV staff looks at close races -- ones in which the uncounted paper/provisional ballots could make a difference to the final outcome. They sort through the paper/provisional ballots and begin inspecting and counting those ballots first.

​

Meanwhile, candidates in close races start forming teams of attorneys and volunteer monitors. Those monitors go to the office of the OC ROV and watch the inspection and tallying of uncounted provisional and absentee ballots to make sure the process is fair. Signatures are compared with the signature on the original registration form, for example, before the ballot is counted.

​

Each staff person who is doing inspections is watched by at least one monitor from each campaign. If a ballot is challenged by one of the monitors, it is set aside for later consideration (probably by the candidates' legal teams, but frankly I don't know how this part of the process works).

​

I've participated as a volunteer in 2 or 3 elections. It is a fascinating process, and scrupulously fair. Each team is treated equally, and each team is given respect and dignity. If you ever have the chance to volunteer to be a monitor, do so! You won't regret it.

​

There are a couple of reasons the pattern is not consistent among the various groups of ballots being counted. One thing that happens occasionally is that there's a damaging hit piece or damaging piece of news late in the campaign. That can result in the early ballots being rather dramatically different than the day-of and late ballots.

​

But the more common reason is that the 3 groups of voters (early mail-ins, polling place, and late mail-ins/provisionals) tend to be demographically different. Early mail-ins tend to be the most well-off, oldest, and most conservative. Polling place voters are, on average, somewhat less well-off, younger, and less conservative. Late mail-ins and provisionals are the least well-off, youngest, and least conservative.

​

Of course these are generalizations -- for example, plenty of young liberals vote early and by mail. But *on* *average* this is a picture of the voting habits of Californians today, and it's why Democratic candidates start to pull ahead in close races as the counting continues.

---

Being a veteran, I would point out that military members serving away from home (ie, just about every single military member) use mail-in absentee ballots whose validity is based on the postmark. There would naturally be a delay of a couple days for those to arrive, then on top of that you'd have the time it takes to process, verify, and tally them.The bottom line is and must be that every vote must count!snopes.com results for "dead people voting": https://www.snopes.com/?s=dead+people+voting. Three hits were pertinent, including one claiming that an NPR study had reported that 25 million fraudulent ballots had been cast for Hillary. All three claims proved to be false. There is also an article about a 21-year-old Virginia man who had fraudulently registered dead people; despite Republican claims that they had been registered as Democrats, Virginia does not include party affiliation when you register to vote.What makes this kind of story appealing for you alt-righters are the old stories from half a century ago out of Cook County, IL, of dead people being registered to vote. snopes.com results for "people registered in different precincts": https://www.snopes.com/?s=dead+people+voting. The single hit, "Does This List Prove Voter Fraud in 2012?", shows the claim to be false.snopes.com results for "people voting twice": https://www.snopes.com/?s=dead+people+voting. Only one pertinent hit also proved to be false. But surely you can at least tell us how that could even happen, especially in the large numbers that those rumors usually cite. How is that supposed to even work? We keep asking you to explain that and you keep avoiding the question. It is prosecuted, but only when it actually does happenMost of these rumors that you cite have their origins in problems with the records kept by registrars. Those issues must be looked into that the system of voter registration must be perfected.

Well, it is quite obvious that you don't. For that matter, I don't even think you read any part of my message. So then what part of the following did you not understand?:

quote:

---

Here's the procedure in OC. The mail-in ballots that are received early are counted before election day, though the mail-in totals are not revealed. Those totals, plus the votes cast at early voting centers, are the ones that are posted a few minutes after the polls close.
After that the trucks begin to arrive at the ROV in Santa Ana. The trucks bring the voting machines and paper ballots that were turned in at polling places. As the voting machines come into the ROV, their results are added to the posted results. On election day, the OC ROV generally updates every hour (9 pm, 10 pm, etc.) I think they stop at midnight or 1 am, or perhaps when the last voting machine from the last truck arrives.

​

The next day the OC ROV does something that's somewhat unique among county registrars. The OC ROV staff looks at close races -- ones in which the uncounted paper/provisional ballots could make a difference to the final outcome. They sort through the paper/provisional ballots and begin inspecting and counting those ballots first.

​

Meanwhile, candidates in close races start forming teams of attorneys and volunteer monitors. Those monitors go to the office of the OC ROV and watch the inspection and tallying of uncounted provisional and absentee ballots to make sure the process is fair. Signatures are compared with the signature on the original registration form, for example, before the ballot is counted.

---

Plus my point about absentee ballots, the type most likely to be used by military members, taking days to arrive if they had been mailed and processed by the US Post Office by Election Day (as determined by their postmark): What part of that did you not understand? I already quoted it for you and for everybody else! If you refuse to read, then you are just committing willful stupidity. Again! (sheesh!):

quote:

---

But the more common reason is that the 3 groups of voters (early mail-ins, polling place, and late mail-ins/provisionals) tend to be demographically different. Early mail-ins tend to be the most well-off, oldest, and most conservative. Polling place voters are, on average, somewhat less well-off, younger, and less conservative. Late mail-ins and provisionals are the least well-off, youngest, and least conservative.

​

Of course these are generalizations -- for example, plenty of young liberals vote early and by mail. But *on* *average* this is a picture of the voting habits of Californians today, and it's why Democratic candidates start to pull ahead in close races as the counting continues.

---

So what part of that did you not understand.Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. You had never bothered to read it in the first place!

A win-win-win situation? You know that that would never fly. Trump will only settle for a "he wins, everybody else loses" outcome.

Like I said, you are being willfully stupid. Was that short enough for you?If you refuse to ever read what we post, then just never pretend to reply! Was that short enough for you?All you are proving is that you are an evil America-hating, Russia-loving troll, 100% behind Trump's agenda to serve Putin by destroying America ... but not before liquidating all of America's resources.

Yes, serving the Beast while he serves the Anti-Christ. So much for your lies about serving the Christian god.

Why would you? You never read them anyway, Child of the Beast.Though there should be Scripture about what happens to those who follow the Beast.If you were a Christian, then you should take pause at the possibility of having been fooled by the Beast, but you don't. And you will have your reward.Edited by dwise1, : second paragraph

But you have no opinions. All you do is to repeat alt-right lies mostly provided by Russia.We will continue to expose your lies for the benefit of visitors. But you are beyond unredemption.

No, but when somebody turns out to be an evil lying troll, then that's a different matter.

No, saying so would be completely false! Scharzenegger was born in Austria, not in Germany. Austria is a completely different country from Germany.But will you read that? Of course not! Will you ever learn better? Of course not! You will cling to your willful ignorance and hence also to your willful stupidity. Obama was born in Hawaii. I'm sure that you don't realize this, but Hawaii is a state in the USA. But of course you will never learn that because you will refuse to read anything that anybody tells to.One point of confusion for you idiotic birthers is that President Barack Obama's fathers was also Barack Obama. The father was indeed born in Kenya, but not the son, our previous President. So when you ask his grandmother, the father's mother, about Barack Obama, how was she supposed to know whether you are talking about her son or her grandson?But will you ever learn? No, of course not. You will just continue to repeat the same old idiotic bullshit alt-right lies.Go back to Russia.

Another scenario that I find to be more likely is that she thought that they were asking her about her son, not her grandson. Remember that her son, President Obama's father, was also named Barack Obama. The translator's correction was to point out which Barack Obama that guy was asking her about, that the question was about her grandson, not her son.

When I taught my son, I explained it to him as I drove us to the mall parking lot. Then I had him slowly let the clutch out a number of times so that he would get the feel of that point where it's just starting to engage, so that he could recognize that point just from that feeling. Then I had him let it out more while adding gas and start us moving from a dead stop. He had it down in 10 minutes, but we practiced for another 5 minutes or so.

For that matter, is there any kind of voter fraud that voter ID would prevent?

That's exactly what I was thinking. The only kind of voter fraud that an ID would prevent would be if you tried to pose as somebody else who's registered. That could only work under a few conditions which would make it very difficult to use on a massive enough scale to fix an election.One of the holes in our election system is that each state has different election laws and procedures. My experience is with how we do it in California, so actual mileage may vary.In California all registered voters are assigned a polling place to go to. There, they have two computer printouts: one sorts all registered voters belonging to that polling place by street name and number, the other is a log book of registered voters which we sign. You tell them your street name, then they ask for your address number, and then finally your name. If they find you listed, they line out your name and refer you to the next person who has opened the log book to your name where you sign the log book and write in your address.A third person prints out a receipt with a number which I assume is unique to you, the second person writes that number in the log book next to your name, and you use that number to log into the voting machine. Our voting machines are electronic, at the end they have you verify your selections, and your selections are printed out on paper inside the machine (you can see what it's printing).Now, that all requires you to have already been registered, so voter ID would do nothing to stop additional unregistered votes to enter the system. In addition, everybody gets marked off when they vote, so there's no voting multiple times. And if somebody had voted posing as you then you come in to vote, then that would immediately raise a red flag, in which case I assume that that unique number in the log book could be used to find and eliminate that false ballot. Or in the case of an impostor trying to vote after you had voted, then the culprit would be exposed on the spot. In either case, I assume that the second person would need to produce some kind of ID.In the situation that the voter is/should be registered but isn't in the printout, then he fills out a provisional ballot which election officials will verify later to determine whether it is valid. Reasons for needing a provisional ballot can include administrative error, going to the wrong polling place, having been purged from the rolls, or not having an authorized ID (where required). In the states practicing voter suppression, voters are urged (not by the election officials) to fill out a provisional ballot anyway.There are also other ways to vote. In early voting, you go to a central location, they verify you in their records (no ID required in Calif.), and you vote -- I assume that the polling places' printouts are updated accordingly. There's also absentee ballots that are mailed in or dropped off -- this is actually the most common vector for actual voter fraud as we're seeing in the on-going drama of North Carolina's 9th Congressional District (voter fraud committed by the Republicans -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/...at-happened-north-carolina).The weak link in our election systems is in voter registration and electoral roll (AKA "voter roll") and that is where reform is really needed. Voter rolls are not always updated when a voter dies, moves to a different precinct, or becomes disenfranchised and that produces discrepancies. Virtually all the figures given by advocates of Voter ID laws are taken from enumerations of those voter roll discrepancies -- basically they make the ludicrous assumption that each discrepancy is a case of voter fraud instead of merely having that potential.For Voter-ID-preventable voter fraud to work, it needs to be scaled up and highly organized. First, you would need a reliable list of registered voters who are guaranteed to not vote, such as discrepancies in the voter rolls. That would require infiltrating the election offices and most likely enlisting local election officials as your co-conspirators. Then you would need an army of faux voters to pose as those discrepant registered voters. This would be a scheme that Voter ID would stop.If you cannot make it an inside job, then an alternative could be flooding the rolls with false registrations that you can then . Over half a century ago, I heard stories out of Cook County, Ill, of party machine operatives combing the cemeteries for names to register to vote. Again, you would need an army of faux voters to pose as those discrepant registered voters. This would be another scheme that Voter ID would stop.Then there was Trump's ridiculous claim that someone could cast multiple votes by going out to the car and putting on a hat and coming back in posing as somebody else. Something like that would be done by some political machines (Tammany Hall comes to mind) would have a guy with a beard vote, then partially shave and vote again, then shave a bit more and vote yet again, until at the end he'd be clean-shaven and had voted half a dozen times. That's probably a common enough story in NYC for Trump to have heard while growing up, it would not work now with our tighter voting procedures -- eg, Tammany Hall didn't have to get around computer printouts of the voting rolls.I am in agreement that the only purpose of Voter ID laws is voter suppression. And while I believe strongly that we need to do a better job of maintaining voter rolls, the new voter roll purging and "exact match" practices and rules are again nothing but voter suppression.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add 1 blank line between paragraphs to fix tiny flaw in otherwise wonderful formatting.

Good thorough and thoughtful reply. We know that Faith will never read it.For example, she will completely ignore these very important facts: So far, all we know about what the Mueller report says comes solely from Barr's summary. Using the link to Barr's summary that DrJones* gave to Faith in Message 1067 at 28-Mar-2019 5:24 PM (and to which she never replied), https://www.nytimes.com/...s/barr-letter-mueller-report.html, I find that the word "collusion" is never used. Never, not even once.Conspiracy and coordination require definite agreements, actions, and explicit communication between the parties involved. Collusion does not. Barr was explicit about conspiracy and coordination, but did not say one word about collusion.Here again is what Barr wrote, including his quote from the report and the accompanying footnote:

quote:

---

As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”¹

​

-----------------------------------

​

¹ In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement”tacit or express”between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

---

Barr does discuss at length that Mueller did not come to any conclusions regarding Trump's obstruction of justice, leaving that to others (eg, DOJ, Congress) to determine, undoubtedly using the evidence provided in the report. Again, not talking about collusion.Barr also quoted Mueller about whether his investigation exonerates Trump:

quote:

---

The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

---

So then just who was it who declared that the Mueller report completely exonerated Trump? Mueller didn't, neither did Barr; those two are our only sources who have read the report and they both explicitly state that the report does not exonerate Trump.Oh, yeah, it was Trump himself, the Perpetual Liar, who immediately declared that Mueller's report completely exonerated him. And of course the Fake News Network (including "Fakes and Friends", no doubt) immediately repeated Trump's new lie as Gospel, giving Trump a source and more fodder for Fakes creating a positive-feedback loop (which any beginning engineering student knows is unstable and leads to oscillations that could end up tearing the system apart).But of course Faith will never read that either.