Thank you for doing my legwork. There's a guy at my office who was celebrating there finally being conclusive proof of fraud. I told him it sounded like bullshit, but to appear open minded, I told him I'd wait a few hours for all of this to be checked out.

So, let me ask you, assuming you're ideologically a Republican and that you find Ossoff and Warnock horrible alternatives, do you vote for Perdue and Loeffler even though they called for for the Ga. Sec of State to resign due to election fraud in Georgia? I'm really torn here.

News out of Georgia:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/brian-kemp-georgia-brad-raffensperger-signature-audit

As I understand it, on election night at around 10:00 p.m., the election workers told everyone to go home because of a pipe break. There has never been any evidence of a pipe actually having broken, and internal emails indicated that the claims were greatly exaggerated and that there might have been a slow leak . https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/slow-leak-text-messages-cast-doubt-on-georgia-officials-burst-pipe-excuse-for-pause-in-counting/news-story/19176f5113512210517c82debe684392

In any event, all the Republican observers left, but at least 4 vote counters remained. This newly released video shows that votes continued being counted in the absence of the observers after they were told to leave. The votes counted were taken from boxes that were stored under the table, which is alleged to have been from a different location than all previous ballots that were observed to be counted when the Republican observers were there.

My understanding is that the way absentee ballots are counted is that the exterior envelope is examined by a Republican and Democrat poll worker and they then determine whether the signature matches. If it does, the ballot is opened and scanned. If not, it's placed aside for further evaluation. Once a ballot it opened and accepted, there is no way to link that ballot back to the voter. So the theory is here that there were pre-created fabricated ballots that were not in envelopes stored under the table. The poll workers made up a story about a water leak and sent the Republican observers home, and then they scanned the fabricated ballots in. The Georgia election was decided by around 10,000 votes, which means in Fulton County, a county with a population of over 1 million, they could have falsified enough votes to change the Trump outcome, and more importantly, the Perdue and Loeffler outcome, which is now headed toward a runoff.

I remain skeptical of the meaning of this video as it was just posted very recently and the other side hasn't yet had an opportunity to respond. It's the breaking news du jour, but the idea that 4 local poll workers could have pulled off this fraud isn't that far fetched. We'll see.

This and Giuliani farting his way through an election "fraud" hearing surrounded by drunks and racists making random shit up. — Baden

Leave it to the Republicans to squander their gains by radicalizing around the nutjobs. If Trump reemerges in 2024, I've got to hope a moderate right independent will run and grab half his votes.

Your post seemed to be a conversation with a certain someone. I'm not sure who it is or that it's terribly relevant, but it seems there is someone in particular in mind you are rejecting.

Regardless, the friends you choose are your choice to make, and if they seem too base for your liking, then they should be avoided. Ideally, you would want someone who would elevate you and not debase you. So I do agree with you to this point, but you starkly present this dilemma moralistically and dichotomously, by condemning the hedonistic and praising the monastic, and then submitting that those are the only two choices. If God, as you say, made you as you are, then you're to celebrate the fact that you're both materialistic and spiritual, with both sides being worthy of praise. You can have your moments of debauchery without the need to seek forgiveness. The choice is in living the life to your standards, which you needn't apologize for or modify for those around you. It is possible though that those with standards in variance from your own are not beneath you.

In choosing which friends you should keep, apply the basic "accept, don't expect" formula. If you cannot accept them for who they are (or they you), then they aren't going to be your friend, no matter how high your expectations are for them to change.

Good article on why Trump sucks: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-stress-tested-election-system-130724112.html

Was there a Yelp review of the experience? Did the women like it? Did human women merit the angelic effort? How did human women give birth to the giants--narrow birth canal and all that? Maybe the tale originated in barely remembered ancient matings of Neaderthals and Homo sapiens? — Bitter Crank

Enoch 7:2 describes them as 300 ells. An ell is about 18 inches. That makes them just slightly larger than a Neanderthal at about 8/10 a mile tall.

A human baby does pretty good damage to the vaj, so I'd think the larger angel half breed would do quite a number, but I also expect the initial penetration would have also done quite a number as well.

It could well be that the ejaculation was the cause of the flood, having spooged our ancient forefathers with angelic baby batter, the ark being their only protection from that salty goodness.

Again, thank you for the questions. Only thorough rigorous inquiry can we fully develop our theories.

A pillar of American prosecutorial strategy is to overcharge people and use the threat of hefty penalties to secure guilty or nolo contendere charges. For example, only 2% of cases in the Federal system go to trial. Prosecutors readily admit to this strategy. You bring cases you likely can't win as common practice, because the risk to the accused if they are convicted will by high enough to compel a plea. You use the plea to give them the lesser punishment you think they deserve. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In 2012, the federal conviction rate was 92%. That was admittedly a very high year, but the suggestion that crimes are being prosecuted that would only lose if taken to trial probably isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

The fact that the Feds don't go after marijuana producers in states where it is legal is an example where prosecutorial discretion based on political decision has functionally rewritten the law as exercised. Those are winnable cases they don't pursue. Charging all the protestors who went to the Kentucky AG's house to protest the Breonna Taylor case with felonies was making unwinnable charges to punish and threaten people. An unwinnable case they did pursue, before reversing thanks to politics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see any ethical problem with not prosecuting winnable cases, but to the extent any unwinnable case is prosecuted, that is an ethical violation. If you have examples where the prosecutor knew there was reasonable doubt and prosecuted anyway, that was unethical. Whether the system is riddled with unethical behavior doesn't change what is and isn't ethical.

Keep in mind that the idea of the "Bible" as a codex containing all canonical books of the Bible, and nothing else is a post-Reformation invention. Monks used to only copy some books, while also including non-cannonical epistles and the writings of early church father's in "Bibles." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, there's a Hebrew Bible canon as well that the monks didn't get a say in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

The Books of Enoch are considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Ethiopian Jews.

Those contain a much more detailed story of the Flood, and of the Nephlim, fallen angels. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Book of Enoch is interesting because it speaks of angels coming from heaven and having sex with human women, resulting in giants called nephilim. Apparently the flood was necessary to clear the world of those beings. Genesis refers to the nephliim as does Numbers, which raises the question of how some survived the flood. Anyway, I find it interesting because a distinguishing factor of Judaism is the departure from a system of multiple gods warring with one another, having sex with one another, and otherwise engaging in a very human fashion as you might see with Greek Gods or in pagan cultures. The remnants found in the OT of these giants and the discarding of the Book of Enoch from the canon seems like an effort to clear this new fangled religion away from its more primitive past.

There is a general consensus that monotheism was a process, not just a sudden belief that arose among the ancient Hebrews and a very early presence of nephilim would be consistent with that pre-evolved state.

S, is that you? — jamalrob

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

I’m loving Trump’s efforts contesting the results of the election and his refusal to concede, not only because it puts a spotlight on America’s shoddy election process, but also because it renders his opponents silly. — NOS4A2

Except there's no evidence that America has a shoddy election process. There's been no actual evidence presented and every meaningful claim he's filed in court has failed, even before some of his own appointees. I'm just not following how he's making anyone look silly by making unsubstantiated allegations.

It's incel frog talk. Picked it up from 4chan. I'm diversifying. — Baden

Had to Google all those terms. Either you're fucked up or I'm just old, but prolly both, and by "prolly," I mean probably, as in more likely, just in case you're not up on the way the kids talk.

There are still brainlets on predictit.org betting real actual money that Trump won. — Baden

"Brainlet" Hip term.

Btw, give me some insight, what do Georgians think of Sidney Powell's latest conspiracy theory that Dominion paid Brian Kemp to illegally add a shit-ton of votes to Biden's tally and of her threat to "blow up" Georgia with a "Biblical" lawsuit. It's National Enquirer "Aliens ate my baby"-level stuff, but is it gaining any traction? And wtf is she doing it for? It's never going anywhere? Is there a plan here? — Baden

It's hard to get my finger on the pulse. There's a guy at work here who's sure that there was fraud, despite there being no evidence of it.

When the Republican Secretary of State Raffesnberger certified the election, Perdue and Loeffler issued a joint statement calling for his resignation. Kemp wouldn't go so far, so now there's talk when he's up for reelection, the Republicans are going to run someone against him in the primary who's more pro-Trump. It appears therefore that the political strategists believe that Republican Georgians are very pro-Trump and they don't want to push back on his crazy conspiracy theories. My own thinking is that isn't a great strategy considering the slim margin needed for a victory and this tact might lose more Republicans than it will gain. That is, I can't imagine any Trump supporter voting for Warnock or Ossoff because they'd have been incensed had Perdue and Loeffler showed some integrity and demanded the truth.

My own thought is that the Republicans need to recognize that Trump isn't concerned about the future of the Republican party or of the country and they need to jump off the Trump crazy train.

I'm in a bind myself here because I have serious problems with Warnock and Ossoff and could never vote for them. I also have a problem with Loeffler's stock trade shenanigans. And then there's the really big issue for me in that I think Perdue and Loeffler are spineless pieces of shit for not standing up against stupidity and dishonesty and in demanding the resignation of someone who did the right thing. But then again, I see the Senate as the only check left against a Democratic party that is being pushed farther left than the general public wants, so I want the Republicans to win here.

So, I guess I'll have to vote for Perdue at least, but maybe not Loeffler (and just leave that one blank), but I'm really not sure. I can't even so a write in vote here because you can't do a write in for a runoff. I guess I have to decide which choice is the least worst.

Prior to the election, Ivanka, who is Jewish, was seen praying by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe's grave. https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/10/26/ivanka-trump-prays-at-lubavitcher-rebbes-grave-ahead-of-us-election/

From 1981, the Rebbe's view of US elections:

You can't make this stuff up.

You seem to be referring to a duty of government, though. What are the duties of those endowed with the rights, if there are any? Those are the duties I thought were being referred to when it's claimed there are no rights without duties. — Ciceronianus the White

If there is natural law, there is natural duty, which I think I described and which would relate to government insofar as what would a just government look like.

As to what natural duties are imparted upon those endowed with the natural rights, that sounds like you're asking what I'm commanded to do by virtue of my humanity. I suppose I would be prohibited from lying and stealing, should honor my mother and father, and shouldn't covet my neighbor's wife, to name a few. To be more secular about this, my duties might entail being a charitable and kind person. Of course Kant spoke about ethical duty, so if you find that persuasive, then the categorical imperative would answer the question of what our duty is as well.

We hear this often, but I wonder what it means, at least in the context of a belief in natural rights. Does it mean there are natural duties as well as natural rights? If so, what are those duties? Is the duty being referred to simply an obligation not to infringe on the natural rights of others? That would seem merely another way of saying natural rights generally shouldn't be violated, which in turn seems to be merely a way of saying there are natural rights.

If we have a natural right to life, what is the duty associated with it without which the right wouldn't or couldn't exist? If there's a natural right to own property, what is the corresponding duty? — Ciceronianus the White

Under a natural law position, the duty would be in protecting that right, whatever it may be, from infringement. If you were a natural rights adherent, you would argue that the legitimate duty of the US government (for instance) is to protect our inalienable rights, not create them. If you were a legal positivist, you would argue the US government has no such duty, but that it can create any law it desires, but when it does, it provides you the benefits of that law. It does not protect anything you already have. It creates it and you should be grateful for what has been provided to you.

It's a matter of creation by the government versus protection by the government. Subtle, but important from an ideological perspective, but if you accept the natural law position, the government does clearly have a duty, and it would be an unjust government if it failed in its duty.

As an aside, and I don't know how this figures into this analysis is the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, also an ancient Roman tradition.

Very briefly, I am Jewish, married a non-Jew, my marriage being entirely unrecognized by Jewish law, finally ending in divorce. I am now engaged to a baptized Catholic, who is divorced from a non-Catholic, married in a non-Catholic church. That marriage is not recognized as a valid sacramental Catholic marriage, but it is considered a natural law marriage as it arose under all the conditions of a valid marriage (they considered themselves married, exclusive, to be lifelong partners, wanted to procreate, etc.). For her to marry me and wish to be able to take communion and be in good standing, she would need an annulment of the natural law marriage. And making this odder, I would also need an annulment as well, despite being Jewish and formally married to a Methodist because I apparently still remain married under my natural law marriage. To marry me prior to my annulment, even should she receive an annulment, would be polygamy and adultery.

I know all this because I talked to a priest about it, which was an interesting event.

I'm not sure if this story has application here, but it does seems to stand for the proposition that natural law does impart very specific rights and obligations, namely the ability to marry (and all the rights and privileges that implies) and the obligation not to forsake that marriage.

What I think is striking about these statements is the absence of any positive expression of the belief that slaves have the natural right to be free. They're equal to their masters under natural law, but are slaves nonetheless. Slavery seems to be taken for granted, and I don't think it would be if natural rights were accepted. — Ciceronianus the White

And there's the similarity in American law, where our Declaration states we have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the pre-13th Amendment Constitution specifically protected the institution of slavery. What this means, I suppose, is that the Romans and the Americans were willing to accept that there is a right way to do things and then there is the way things are going to be done.

So, if the Romans permitted slavery, they would be admitting their law was unjust and not in compliance with the way things ought to be. While the leaders may understand the citizens' protests against the government policies as being inherently unjust and in violation of the way nature means things to be, they wouldn't feel compelled to change the law because Caesar gets to do what Caesar wants to do.

I would then think that at some point in the evolution of society, leaders would feel compelled to pass laws consistent with their most fundamental principles. This drive to be consistent and to do right in the law would not actually compel the leaders, but it would just be a drive, fully subject to being ignored as the leaders saw fit. This moment in time would be consistent with the positive law system you advocate.

I would think, though, that at some point in the further evolution of society, a belief would form that no government could withhold what nature endowed, forcing the government to change its function from being the creator of enforceable laws that are consistent with natural law to being the protector of rights derivable from natural law. This moment in time would be inconsistent with your positive law system, as it would signal a shift to a natural rights system.

A question I'd submit to you is that If we're both in agreement with what the law ought to be (e.g. there should not be slaves), and we're both in agreement as to why the law ought be as it is (because natural law dictates such things), why would you want to maintain a system that allows government to pass laws that it shouldn't? Why don't you see the evolution toward a natural rights system a step forward? As you present it, you portray this step as a misstep.

This is to say that if your historical analysis is correct that ancient Roman law did not recognize the concept of natural rights, why would you want to protect that ancient system, especially when it appears that the direct recognition of natural rights is an evolutionary step forward because it protects us against unjust governments and actually declares laws that are passed that are not in compliance with natural law beyond the charter of any just government?

I don't understand how your example establishes the ancient Greeks believed in natural rights as distinguished from natural law. — Ciceronianus the White

If ancient Roman law held that all men were created equal by virtue of nature (https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/cicero/political-ideas-of-cicero-natural-law-equality-and-idea-of-state/1039), then wouldn't this natural law concept necessarily translate into some form of natural right? Surely if I'm equal to you by virtue of my humanity, there must necessarily be some rule that if applied unequally would result in a violation of my natural right to be treated fairly.

We might debate what those specific natural rights are that flow from the general principles of natural law, but that doesn't mean they do not exist. For example, my right to free speech might be argued to exist by virtue of my right to speak my mind just as you can speak your mind and just as any elected official might speak theirs as we're all equals created to do justice. If natural law states I am to do justice and that is part of my creation, my right to free speech does appear to flow from that and is therefore a natural right.

Specifically with respect to the Battle of Britain this was true. And this only concerns the way war was waged, Hitler was still the aggressor which means everything that followed was unjust. — Benkei

Assuming international law is not an authority on morality and assuming retribution is a valid militaristic response to an unprovoked attacked, do you agree that Churchill was justified in bombing Dresden?

I'm just seeing if you agree with my logical conclusions if you assumed my foundational beliefs. If you do, then I've least deciphered the origin of our disagreement.

But in what sense was it the Nazis who were being punished? I think in no sense at all, but I suppose you have another view. I think I could accept your interpretation of Kantian retributive justice as it applies to war (which I think is controversial, but never mind) without accepting that incinerating innocent Germans amounted to retribution against the Nazis. — jamalrob

But isn't it always a matter of degree of responsibility that the citizens have for their leader's actions as opposed to offering the citizens full absolution? It's not as if the citizens are nothing more than loyal fans cheering on their football team to victory without expectation of personal consequence should they win, or should they lose. It is a reasonable expectation that if my government rounds up millions of innocent people for the slaughter that there might be some horrible consequence to myself if the tides turn and comeuppance is sought. So, I do offer some degree of complicity to the average citizen, but certainly not as much as to those carrying out the commands and certainly much less than to those issuing the commands. As the bombs fell over Berlin, the curses from the ground should have been directed at Hitler first and foremost. The rest of their curses should have been directed at perhaps Churchill, but quite possibly themselves, depending upon their level of acquiescence to the actions of their government.

Demanding that each citizen answer for their silence, their acquiescence, and their complicity would make the ethical violations of their leaders more difficult to execute. I'm really having some amount of difficulty hearing the cries of the German citizens over the cries of those who were executed by their government. Maybe my sentiment is unrefined and illogical somewhere, but surely it's understandable and not entirely wrongheaded.

I think the original point of Benkei's that you objected to was this: "The Blitz still targeted docks and war effort manufacturing. It was Churchill who went for the jugular." The thing is, in the context of Britain and Germany's bombing of each other, this is a fact. That you took Benkei to be implying a general equivalency is partly why I accused you of kneejerk reaction. — jamalrob

My objection to @Benkei's comment is that it implies (at least to my ears) that at least Hitler kept his attacks within the purview of international law, but it was Churchill who rampantly killed without justification or basis. My comment that followed was that there was nothing at least about Hitler. To the extent he limited his bombings to military targets wasn't because he wanted to keep the war nice and clean and strategic. What he wanted to do was exact the most possible damage on the centralized forces as he could so that he could get his boots on the ground and purge the land of non-Aryans. Hitler was going for the jugular, trying to kill the whole organism. Churchill was at worst lashing about in revenge, but he never did as Hitler would have and tried to wipe out all Anglo blood from the German soil.

Is the motivation for defending Britain's deliberate bombing of civilians that giving even an inch to those who condemn it would be seen to moderate one's uncompromising opposition to everything the Nazis did and stood for? I don't understand it otherwise. And even this motivation is difficult to understand except as a thoughtless kneejerk reaction. It seems to me that your moral authority is only enhanced by facing up to the crimes perpetrated by your own side. After all, if anything you do can be justified by "but Nazis" then you don't have much of a morality at all. — jamalrob

There seems to be what I'll call a "combatant's exception," where we allow some degree of excuse (or at least we mitigate our evaluation of the severity of the infraction) when the person committing the act is in the heat of battle. It's for that reason that court martials are notoriously lenient. If a soldier fires off too many rounds after fighting for his life, we tend to allow for some degree of overkill (literally). You see the same with the current shootings by police, although those have been called into question because the concern is the overkill is not motivated by uncontrollable emotion, but by racism. This exception would also apply to those in the command center, not just on the ground, so it could apply to Churchill as well. This exception appears to be acknowledged by both you and @Benkei. You've stated that you're not willing to call the bombings of Berlin a war crime and Benkei specifically stated he did not see a moral equivalence between the Nazi crimes and the crimes of Churchill.

Whether this combatant's exception is an unethical and unjustified kneejerk response, I don't think it is. A Kantian analysis allows for retribution, and it ignores consequentialist concerns. As Benkei pointed out, targeting civilians does not damage morale and serves no military purpose, but that is irrelevant if one is conducting a Kantian ethical analysis and not a Utilitarian one. The question would be whether the attack of enemy, which includes civilian attacks, is a proportionate response to whatever preceded it. I tend to think the pain doled out on civilian populations by the Nazis leaves them in a difficult position to argue that they were being disproportionately punished by the bombings over Germany. The last place a Nazi would wish to find himself is in a court guided by the principles of retributivism. I'd also point out that this Kantian analysis is consistent with other Western ethical theories (see, for example, 1 Samuel 15:2-3).

All of this is to say that the acceptance of Churchill's behavior as ethical is not just a kneejerk reaction, but it does have a philosophically arguable basis and it is embedded in the historical moral conscience through culturally accepted sacred documents (to the extent that matters).

Additionally, I entirely disagree with Benkei's assessment that Churchill was not a hero even if I were to agree that the bombings of civilian German targets was entirely unjustified. I can easily divide Churchill's dogged refusal to submit to the Nazi onslaught and his unrelenting effort to protect his island and the greater Western world on the one hand from with his decision to bomb civilian targets on the other. That one saves humanity on Monday and engages in acts of depravity on Tuesday doesn't make me reassess their heroism on Monday. It simply means that I get a trophy when I'm the champion, and I get relegated when I go winless.

The points I think to learn is that we weren't heroes, or if we were, more anti-heroes. I don't forgive Churchill for wilfully targeting innocents; I do prefer Churchill over Hitler though.

Second is that targeting civilians hasn't been effective in breaking moral. If you're going to do it, it apparently takes a nuke. But that's problematic for other reasons so really : don't target civilians. — Benkei

A hero needn't be perfect. I'm not looking for a messiah, just someone to free the innocent who have been damned to torture, abuse, and death.

I wasn't in Churchill's head, so I can't say whether his bombings were designed as much to break morale as much as it was to exact revenge. You may not consider revenge the holiest of concepts, but it's understandable, forgivable, and can be argued even as ethical, assuming how you wish to interpret Kantian retributivism. When someone hits you back after an unprovoked attack, asking him "whatever did I do to deserve this" really doesn't gain you much sympathy.

I'm pretty sure I got this part right. Hitler hoped for a truce so didn't want to attack civilian targets. There were civilian deaths of course but as collateral damage and I think only a few bombing runs went (purposefully?) wrong. The Blitz still targeted docks and war effort manufacturing. It was Churchill who went for the jugular. — Benkei

You will always annoy me with your return to this argument, which, at least to my ears, asserts some sort of moral equivalence between the axis and allied forces by pointing out that the British bombing of Berlin was a war crime of sufficient magnitude that we need to evaluate it outside the context of the greater events occurring at the time and therefore condemn it.

Maybe Hitler had some immediate strategic purpose for avoiding civilian casualties in his bombing raids, but it certainly wasn't because of his love of humanity or his respect for international law. I can't imagine an argument can be made that had he defeated Britain he would have kindly admitted his fallen foes into the egalitarian society he ultimately envisioned. That is to say, had Hitler won, Britain would have seen plenty of civilian casualties.

What made Hitler the monster he was was his systematic and cold-blooded murder of non-enemy civilians, many of whom resided in his own nation. He didn't care about the law of his own nation that prohibited murder, but I'm to believe he was worried about some other international law, as if legal advisors guided his decisions?

My point being that whatever Churchill did in response to a genocidal maniac who murdered over 10 million people and relentlessly tried to overtake his British homeland in a quest to literally dominate the world with his brand of insanity, I forgive him. Maybe you'd have maintained your composure better than Churchill, but I don't see that necessarily as a virtue.

Yes, in fact it's a nicely concise way of saying what Marchesk and I subsequently said, about the messy and disastrous realities of intervention. — jamalrob

I can agree with part of this. There is sometimes confusion contextualizing other people's problems and in some areas there is moral ambiguity. There are other times, though, when we can clearly and accurately identify evil and we can rightly say the world would be better off with its elimination. Where I'd agree with you, though, is that sometimes the cure turns out being worse than the disease and the joy we intend to bring doesn't come close.

If I could tinker with the analogy then, I'd say if I were to see a woman being physically assaulted by her husband, intervention that brings about the end of that abuse seems in order, including perhaps arrest and at least probation and maybe incarceration. What then if that arrest leads to his loss of employment and the financial deprivation of the children? It's complicated, but not by virtue of the fact that I can't decipher the good from the bad, but by the fact that a sledge hammer doesn't solve all problems.

As you noted, many Russians don't want America to free them of anything, and I don't think that most Russians remember the times soon following the dismantling of the USSR to be particularly pleasant or a time of spiritual renewal. It was much the opposite so I'm told. But to the question of whether the totalitarian regime during the USSR years was good or evil (should we be left with that limited dichotomy), I'd say evil, standing in opposition to the values many of us hold so dear. I don't think the sledge hammer to the wall fixed much though.

I'd also like to point out my initial use of the figurative sledge hammer followed by my then literal use of the sledge hammer was a nice literary device by me.

Where were you thinking Felonia should be? Depending on one's politics, Manhattan? Georgia? Los Angeles? Puerto Rico? North Dakota? Isle Royale (its in Lake Superior--(206 square miles--much bigger than Manhattan and unoccupied, except by wolves and moose)? Aleutian Islands? Or maybe Russia would rent us a couple of gulags in Siberia. — Bitter Crank

I wish to thank you for your questions. Your probing inquiries allow me to better sort out my ideas so that their implementation will go more smoothly.

I was imagining a dusty field that goes on as far as the eye can see, with small patches of grass, crushed soda cans, and spent condoms littered throughout. The locals will not be run off, but they'll be permitted to stay. I expect they will be unshaven (even the women), with dark sullen faces, muttering about their failures and the humiliation of their having to be housed with the damned.

The precise location of where this less than utopian society will be staged is not as important as it is that it just meet my exacting standards. Not to be a prima donna, but I am so over the incompetence of others in bringing my visions to reality. But if you insist upon an actual address, I think the burning streets of Portland might do (assuming they have a field with sullen, humiliated people nearby), or perhaps the frozen island in your neck of the woods you mentioned, although I would expect you to serve as warden if I'm going to do you the favor of bringing that industry to you.

If we've grown weary of running folks into cages and we're uncomfortable busting heads, and we're not naïve enough to think we can change hearts and minds, we need to be more creative in our punishments. I think we should return to banishment.

What we would do is take all the felons and send them off to a secured part of the nation and let them figure out their existence there. We'd name the place Felonia. They could elect who they wanted, create whatever industry they wanted, and, after a certain number of years of good work in Felonia, we could allow them to return to the rest of the nation. If the castaways wish to form their own prisons, they could do that, or they could engage in an infinite regress and cast off their worst members into a sub-banishment zone, and then those could then create a sub-sub banishment zone until they had finally separated out the worst person of all time.

What appeals to me is that we don't entirely deprive those in Felonia the ability to carry out the purpose of their existence and there remains a right to return after repentance. It has a religious feel to it, so I can feel good about it.

. In terms of the history of prisons, it's a fairly modern phenomenon, with jails having existed at first only to hold a prisoner until trial and then some type of corporeal punishment to follow. The concept of locking people away was meant as a more humane way of punishment because we today couldn't stomach beating the shit out of the convicted and then setting them loose.

I don't know what the better solution might be, but I think if we go about it with the belief that imprisonment is the last resort and all other avenues should first be considered, we might end up at a better place. Or maybe not. Maybe we'd just end up with more violence once serious repercussions are removed. I don't think there's a simple solution, but it's a great big problem.

Feel free to get specific or general. Just want to hear peoples' initial thoughts and then we can all discuss further as the thread grows as well! — The Questioning Bookworm

The incarceration rate by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate#United_States

The US appears to be at the top of the list in terms of incarcerations per capita. It is likely that inaccurate information is provided by certain governments, like China and others, but as to nations the US would like to compare itself to, it clearly incarcerates at a rate far too high.

This data is tied very closed to the Black Lives Matter movement, the defunding of the police movement, and the current riots we're seeing. US incarcerations rates will drop if there's a real effort to stop incarcerating non-violent offenders and legalizing drug use. That's a quick way to bring about a sudden incarceration drop, but I still think the US would compare unfavorably to other Western nations even with that adjustment. American culture is violent, although that violence is kept at bay in most communities, but very much out of control in others. The easy answer to this problem is to point to the abundance of firearms pervasive in US society, although that response is far too simple.

The US has a deep seated cultural problem that responds to conflict violently and unforgivingly. It's a great place to be when you're in the right, not so much when you're in the wrong.

I did see, by the way, that Oregon decriminalized heroin, cocaine, and meth, reducing the sentence to the equivalent of a traffic ticket. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-drug-decriminalization-no-jail-time-for-small-amounts-of-heroin-other-street-drugs/ar-BB1aPYWy?ocid=uxbndlbing

Fox News have started to behave themselves and I think the majority of Trump voters are accepting this defeat gracefully. The positive side of the American spirit is winning through here. — Baden

The Trump speech about having the election stolen from him was truly disgusting. It was a reckless attempt to incite his base to interfere with a fair election. It was a complete disregard for everything that makes America great, most fundamentally, that it is a democracy, subject to the rule of law.

The Biden victory speech was inspirational. I've got to think the contrast has caused many to reconsider.

Good riddance.

Celebrating the demise of Trump and his minions along with my winnings at the bookies the American way. :yum: :party: :party: :party: — Baden

Tennessee, a Trump state.

It almost feels like the media and the states counting the votes are intentionally withholding their results because they know that if they were the ones who called the race then they will be the target of Trump and his violent supporters. — Mr Bee

Violence has been more a characteristic of leftist groups. This is all part of a divisive narrative that vilifies the opposition. Trump declares without evidence that the election has been a fraud, and here you've declared without evidence that elections officials are withholding results for fear they'll be beaten.

The reason Trump is losing is because more people voted for Biden. The reason certain states haven't been called is because they haven't counted enough of the ballots to be sure.

Apparently the GOP legislatures in these states made it so that people can't count the ballots prior to the election when they're received, forcing this slow and agonizing process where Trump can question the results. — Mr Bee

There've always been delays for one reason or the other. This is just the problem du jour. Bush/Gore was hanging chads.

It's close so I wouldn't call it out. Trump's lead has dwindled to 13K and alot of the remaining votes are in blue counties including Atlanta. It seems likely that there will be a recount and that's not even getting into the Senate runoffs. Georgia is tight. — Mr Bee

I take great pride in the fact that my home state is holding up a national election with global ramifications so that the crackerjack poll workers can search every nook and cranny for ballots.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I honestly don't believe there is meaningful elections fraud, but I do wonder what makes this process so protracted. Other than in Alaska where they have to dogsled ballots from remote villages, I'm not sure why it takes so long to do things in Atlanta.

Trump has sent his thugs to Michigan to try to prevent the final votes being counted in a state Biden has clearly won (and has been called by some outlets). Absolute disgrace. — Baden

Oh come on, not a disgrace. It's all over but the shouting. Let him shout.

So... Like...

Cheat until it's become clear you have lost, and then try to call a mulligan cause fairness? — VagabondSpectre

Thank you for the question.

So, in baseball, in the World Series (which is a true "world" series, with teams spanning the globe from as far as Atlanta to Seattle), it's a best out of 7 match. We ought to do that for elections. That's all I'm saying. It's not really a "do over" per se, but more just proof you didn't just happen to have a particularly good or bad day.

Is North Carolina still in play or has that ship sailed? — Benkei

If Trump wins all the states where he's currently leading (which includes NC, PA, GA, and AK), he finishes out with 268, which is 2 shy of the 270 needed, so he'll come in 2nd place, which is pretty good comparatively.

What it looks like is that Trump has to take Nevada too since he can't take MI, although I do like his strategy of trying to get them to stop the counting there, especially if the counting is not putting tick marks next to his name.. There is then the additional problem that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, so we may never be able to access their final tally, but that's limited to Vegas proper, not Nevada generally, but there's not much else there I don't think.

If there is a dispute over the final results, I hope the Court declares a do over. Sometimes that's the fairest thing to do.

That's a lovely story. One to tell your grandkids.. — Baden

This is how I find out you're pregnant? I'm gonna be a grandpa?

Republicans refused to allow absentee ballots to be counted first in PA for this very reason. Very different narrative and much less confusion if they hadn't decided to play dirty. — Baden

I checked online to see if my absentee ballot had been accepted and in one place it said it had and in another it said it was rejected for lack of signature. I do remember signing it.

Anyway, the Republicans might have suppressed a Republican vote, which would serve us right. As a Republican, I enjoy the justice inherent in sleeping in the bed I made, regardless of how unpleasant the consequences.

If only Democrats were so principled.

I trust my math over yours, pumpkin. — Baden

Trump leads in every important state. They've not been called yet, so they're still unknown, but Trump is leading by a couple of runs in the 8th as far as I can see.

Baseball analogy. Look it up punkin.