Search the Lounge


« Rene Knake in the New York Times | Main | Hiring Announcement: University of Arkansas - Fayetteville »

August 04, 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It seems that Democrats favor:

1. Virtually unlimited immigration, with little or no enforcement of existing border laws enacted by Congress to regulate it, and a "path to citizenship" that enables immigrants who have entered illegally to vote after a relatively brief waiting period or, in some instances, as a result of an Executive Order that is inconsistent with law;

2. Virtually unlimited mail voting, wherein millions can cast their ballots. These ballots (contrary to Swan's "questions") will be, in some instances, mailed to everyone on the voting "rolls"--Democrats concomitantly generally oppose any efforts to "refresh" these rolls--or gathered by intermediaries who, in some instances, will be permitted to sign the ballot for the voter;

3. Results that are unknown until long after election day (Swan confirmed this in the interview to which you refer).

In addition, Democrats generally oppose any efforts to require voters to "prove identity" by showing any one of multiple means of identification (e.g., utility bills, or almost anything with the voter's name and address). These "voter id" requirements are deemed to be discriminatory because "minorities" are unable to identify themselves without extraordinary efforts not required of "non minorities."

Does this accurately sum it up?

As for "rejecting the results" of presidential elections, Swan carefully avoided mentioning our history in the US, including, recently, Al Gore. He actually claimed that Clinton accepted the results of the last election and of course, no one remembers anything about Jill Stein's court actions.

It seems that, in recent history, Democrats have been quite willing to go to court to contest the results of presidential elections.

Democrats also appear to generally favor:

Amending the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College;
Passing laws to subvert it by allowing electors to cast votes that deviate from the required vote;
Adding two Senators and a Congressperson by making the District a State (in defiance of the Constitution).

Is this correct?

Please tell me, now, that Trump is the one who is advocating changing the rules.


BTW, before just repeating the talking points of the Democratic Party ("there is no such thing as voter fraud") and its usual sources (Brennan Center, etc.) please review and address the recent report by the Heritage Foundation, accumulating evidence of more than 1,000 documented instances where individuals were either convicted of vote fraud, or where a judge overturned the results of an election based thereon. Please don't just huff and puff. Show that these documented instances were irrelevant or inconsequential.

Ediberto Roman


It was not easy answering your comment today in part because most things you wrote were inaccurate. I am a democrat and if your had some time to read and comprehend any of my books or articles regarding immigration, and it should become clear to you that I DO NOT support open borders. One loses credibility when one makes ill-informed and bombastic statements. Take a look at President Trump as a classic example. As far as your point concerning contesting election results, here too you miss the point--the issue is NOT questioning results, but it was his proposal to delay the election--that is unprecedented as well as unconstitutional.

Ediberto Roman


How about reading reports from your government on immigration--many written for republican presidents--you would likely become more informed on the matter. And perhaps you would stop repeating FOX News talking points? But I doubt it.


It is a cheap resort, all too often employed by those who don't actually view any issue "from all points of view" that any evidence that is contrary to a favored talking point is "Fox News." That is just a slur (in the view of those who use it). You might find the points in this regard made by Bari Weiss to be of interest. Crying out "Fox News" is just dismissing an issue or a claim based on nothing. It is a juvenile, condescending and weak retort.

You complain about bombast, but your two comments are just that. There is really not much factually stated in either. Not much to take issue with the points I summarized. Just attacks on me personally. Proves my point, I think.

You did actually address one issue, sort of. YOu complain that I started out by stating that the position of "Democrats" is "open borders" and that you don't support "open borders."

YOu state that you are a Democrat but disagree with open borders.

Good to know. But, incredibly, I never used the term "open borders." You are apparently so outraged that someone doesn't agree with you that you are making up points to refute!

If you follow the sources that I believe that you do follow, I am quite sure that you are aware of efforts to stifle, impede and basically restrain nearly completely lawful enforcement of the consequences of illegal entry into this country. You can take the Orwellian stance that this is not an "open borders" position ... ok. Point taken.

But, read point one above. Does this summary not accurately reflect the stance of most Democrats/Progressives?

So it seems to me that the points stated above are accurate, even if you do not take an "open borders" position.

You also claim that T proposed delaying the election. I don't how one could characterize this assertion as anything but a Democratic talking point. This claim is repeated over and over, in every venue, by Democrats/Progressives, based on a statement in a tweet that was followed by a question mark.

If anyone who repeats this talking point bothers to review the context, then the reason for the question mark will be understood.

In any event, asserting this already clichéd point is not really very telling, as there has been no proposal to delay "the election" by any other than those who propose counting mail-in ballots for some long period after election day.



Note also that you stated above:

"Some view these claims as nothing more than a ploy to … him with a basis to reject the results of the election."

You put "rejecting the results of an election" in issue. It is noteworthy, therefore, to factually state prominent instances of Democrats/Progressives refusing to accept or contesting the results of recent presidential elections.

Also note. YOu stated above: "As far as your point concerning contesting election results, here too you miss the point--the issue is NOT questioning results, but it was his proposal to delay the election--that is unprecedented as well as unconstitutional."

Again, I'm sorry to say, you are just plain wrong. First, a proposal to delay the election would not be "unconstitutional" in any conceivable way.

And, in fact if you consult the constitution, you will find that it doesn't set "election day." Congress can always change it, if it sees fit, and this would not be "unconstitutional" in any conceivable way, even if the President proposed it. He hasn't but he could, and there wouldn't be anything constitutionally suspect.

In fact, many states this year have postponed elections and the CRS has, three times, considered and approved moving an election if the circumstances warrant. Again, however, T is decidedly NOT proposing changing the rules. Again, that is for the Democrats.

For example, can you please tell me what "election day" means when voters start submitting ballots months before this day, and ballots are accepted, even if not received by this day (by mail).

Of course, that doesn't stop Democrats/Progressives from wanting to declare "election day" a paid holiday!!!

J. Bogart

I suspect you will find what you are looking for at

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad