Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

[marindem01]

Link please

You love to ask for links, when YOU are asked to provide links you refuse. Do your own fucking research.

[Drak]

You love to ask for links, when YOU are asked to provide links you refuse. Do your own fucking research.

He doesn’t read them anyway.

[JoeMemphis]

I can acknowledge that. But I need more than just that stated as a vague assertion. Which concerns?

If people are concerned that the 2020 election was illegitimate, I invalidate those concerns, largely because they lack empirical evidence, several nonpartisan court rulings on that question exist, and several GOP election officials in the 7 states in question say their elections were fair and valid. That's why.

Also, there happen to be plenty of GOP folks like Mike Rounds, Liz Cheney, and Mitt Romney who also say so. Isn't that good enough? (I may disagree with them on many other things, but not the legitimacy of the 2020 election.)



A great and vague assertion. So Joe: I think we have and did have system in place to ensure vote integrity. They existed in the 2020 election, and the 2020 election was valid and legitimate. Therefore, where is the push for all these new, supposed "voter integrity" laws coming from? They seem driven by problems that didn't exist. Again, I can acknowledge concerns are legitimate, but you've got to be specific, and tell me what they are, and why these "reforms" are needed.



Yeah, that is not what I said. I believe there is a Federal interest in making sure the voting process is fair and accessible. Not in partisanship.

You and Glenn might claim these new voting laws are biasing things in favor of one party -- but as always you need to show me what evidence that is based on. In general, I accept a lot of claims, but they need to have good evidence for them.

Fair enough but that cuts both ways.

First I never said that the election was invalid in any respect. That being said, I also never claimed there isn’t voter fraud. I assume the election is valid unless proved otherwise. Further, there is no way any credible way to properly investigate and demonstrate irregularities that would overturn an election in the time between Election Day and inauguration. So all this challenging of electors by either party is just political theatre. It undermines confidence in our election system. If there are weaknesses in the system, the best method to correct those is thru legislation (at the state level IMO) or in the courts after inauguration. Trying to stop or overturn an election after certification is just asking for trouble. I said as much after Biden was declared the winner.

I work in a field that centers on process controls. Perhaps we approach this issue from different perspectives. One can assume there is no fraud because one sees no fraud is one way. The other is to put reasonable processes and procedures in place to insure that the desired outcome( free and fair elections) is achieved as designed. I am in the latter camp.

So I think most voters agree that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable ask for example. I think sending blank absentee ballots to everyone on a voter role that we refuse to allow people to update and properly maintain is asking for trouble. Now there may be ways to mitigate some of these concerns to accomplish both sides. I am open to such discussion. But I am not inclined to look the other way based on vague assertions anymore than you.

We have a constitution that protects the right to vote. We have courts to adjudicate these disputes. The same courts that were available to Trump and his supporters.

[ZoWie]

You ignore the problem that the US was not founded on universal suffrage, far from it, and in trying to move to such a model, the transition has been flawed to say the least. Women couldn't vote until the 1920s. People of color were forcibly given a legal eligibility to vote in a lot of places that didn't have that, but in practice any number of shitty little tricks were and are still used to keep their participation short of where it should be in a true democracy.

Now we have a spectacle where one of the two dominant parties, the Republicans, has been caught red-handed trying to reverse a free and fair election. They've been awfully quiet about this, indicating to me that they are getting the idea that their game is up. Meanwhile, they obfuscate, refuse to testify, and push even worse measures through state legislatures emboldened by the Republican Supreme Court. SCOTUS is represented as a trans-partisan branch of government, but were that the case, you wouldn't have seen the games recently played in the Senate to keep one party in control of the nomination of justices. It's a Republican club run largely by the Federalist Society, and aimed mostly at reversing "liberal" decisions made in the Earl Warren court.

More Republican trickery, in other words.

It used to be the Democrats who did the voter fraud, mostly in large cities. That was dealt with in a variety of ways. Now, it's the Republicans. So it goes. For someone to refuse to say the truth, in other words Republican stonewalling, does not make the truth go away, not when the evidence comes out daily.

New times. New realities. Deal with it.

[ProfX]

So I think most voters agree that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable ask for example.

As for the existence of voter fraud - I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. But what the evidence seems to suggest is:
a) it's fairly rare, because it carries huge penalties - and so even those who would do it won't over cost/benefit analysis
b) election fraud (which is something different) is far more common.

MHO: the problem which is more prevalent and more impactful (election fraud) requires more integrity safeguards.

So, yes and no. Here's the problem. What do you, what can you use for Photo ID? Almost every state allows you to use a driver's license, but there are a lot of people in this country who don't or can't drive.

The Freedom to Vote act doesn't eliminate Photo ID. It DOES suggest there should be more clear and universal rules on what can be used as such; strikes me as a good idea. Especially when there are crazy states that won't allow students to use their student ID, but WILL allow gun owners to use their gun permits.

If there was a simple and easy way for inhabitants of all 50 states to obtain a Photo ID if they don't drive - I would say that is the best solution. But it doesn't exist, yet.

I think sending blank absentee ballots to everyone on a voter role that we refuse to allow people to update and properly maintain is asking for trouble.

Who is doing that? Particularly the part in bold? I don't know of people in any state saying the voter rolls should not be maintained.

We have a constitution that protects the right to vote. We have courts to adjudicate these disputes. The same courts that were available to Trump and his supporters.

Available -- AND ruled against them, several dozen times. The 2nd relevant point.

[Drak]

Sinema just came about against Voters rights, which can only be passed by pushing past the filibuster, parroting RW talking points. She's got her pockets heavily padded so doesn't give a shit about Democracy.

[ZoWie]

The problem is close to 100pct of every proposal regarding voting or campaign reform always are written or designed to benefit the democratic party.

The true voice of a scared Republican who gets the occasional inkling that their party traditionally comes down to simple kneejerk obstructionism, and has done so for at least 40 years, ever since the Jim Crow southern Democrats migrated over to the other side. Now, the Republicans are essentially an obstructionist party nationwide.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[carmenjonze]

When somebody says "we all have to work together". OK, I'm not intrinsically opposed to compromise, negotiation, and finding a middle ground.

The other thing is to consider the source.

But that is just a vague statement, ultimately. What should we be working together on? What compromise should we be reaching? This is where I think specifics could be useful.

Dunno about anybody else but I'm never going to work together with white supremacists, white nationalists, misogynists, anti-immigrants, religious bigots, anti-science conspiracy theorists, or American-exceptioinalist, provincial xenophobes.

Never.

Can't afford to. It's counterintuuitive, and personally dangerous.

[carmenjonze]

The problem is close to 100pct of every proposal regarding voting or campaign reform always are written or designed to benefit the democratic party.

What is your source for this?

[carmenjonze]

Fair enough but that cuts both ways.

There are more than just two ways, ignoramus.

I think most voters agree that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable ask for example.

Your people also felt grandfather clauses, the cops attacking people trying to register, poll taxes, and literacy tests were "reasonable asks."

Nothing you have to say on this topic is credible.

We have a constitution that protects the right to vote.

There's that word, again. We had a constitution that protects the right to vote from the foundation of the country through the period, above.

Wasn't good enough, because of confederate simpletons like you.

[carmenjonze]

You ignore the problem that the US was not founded on universal suffrage, far from it, and in trying to move to such a model, the transition has been flawed to say the least. Women ...

White women. Native American women were barred from citizenship until 1924. Asian-American women went through periods of having their citizenship rights revoked every other decade.

Then you get Black women in southern states...

couldn't vote until the 1920s. People of color were forcibly given a legal eligibility to vote in a lot of places that didn't have that, but in practice any number of shitty little tricks were and are still used to keep their participation short of where it should be in a true democracy.

Democracy scares them.

It's a Republican club run largely by the Federalist Society, and aimed mostly at reversing "liberal" decisions made in the Earl Warren court.

Malicious featherbrains like JoeMemphis and Glennfs parrot Heritage Foundation lines about CRT for this reason. That's the goal: reversing the gains of the 20th c. Civil Rights movement.

[ZoWie]

There is no original constitutional right to vote. What few rights we do have were established much later on, in a series of amendments. These amendments have been argued, skirted, outwitted, and outright violated by local election officials and (on occasion) by armed mobs ever since.

Even the one person, one vote doctrine that is so highly quoted originates from a 1960s SCOTUS decision, as reinforced by a couple of subsequent ones, and now under attack from the Republican court. And even then, it wasn't one PERSON one vote, it was one MAN one vote, though obviously "man" stood for "person" the way it did in much archaic usage. Women, as always, were an afterthought.

This country, conceived in elitism and dedicated to the proposition that all well-born white Protestants were created equal, has been about expanding the suffrage since its founding, and it has rarely gone smoothly.

We are currently in a phase of trying to limit it again, since the Republican Party found it not to be in its best interest to let everyone vote on its ever more divorced from reality ideas.

So goes history. Two steps forward, one or more steps back. Rinse and repeat.

[JoeMemphis]

As for the existence of voter fraud - I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. But what the evidence seems to suggest is:
a) it's fairly rare, because it carries huge penalties - and so even those who would do it won't over cost/benefit analysis
b) election fraud (which is something different) is far more common.

MHO: the problem which is more prevalent and more impactful (election fraud) requires more integrity safeguards.

So, yes and no. Here's the problem. What do you, what can you use for Photo ID? Almost every state allows you to use a driver's license, but there are a lot of people in this country who don't or can't drive.

The Freedom to Vote act doesn't eliminate Photo ID. It DOES suggest there should be more clear and universal rules on what can be used as such; strikes me as a good idea. Especially when there are crazy states that won't allow students to use their student ID, but WILL allow gun owners to use their gun permits.

If there was a simple and easy way for inhabitants of all 50 states to obtain a Photo ID if they don't drive - I would say that is the best solution. But it doesn't exist, yet.



Who is doing that? Particularly the part in bold? I don't know of people in any state saying the voter rolls should not be maintained.



Available -- AND ruled against them, several dozen times. The 2nd relevant point.

I don’t disagree with you on election fraud. I think we need processes and procedures from a control perspective to insure that neither occur. That isn’t to say that it can be completely eliminated but proper procedures should be in place to insure that it has minimal impact and any major breeches are detected or prevented in the first place.

As to ID, in some states anyone over a certain age can get a valid ID. That doesn’t mean they should vote. I’m okay with “real” ID’s. In TN if you have real ID that is noted on your DL. If you don’t drive you can get a state iD that will suffice. I will agree with your point that obtaining an acceptable form of ID should not be so difficult to prevent an individual from voting.

As to your final point, I think we might agree that courts are a good place to resolve disputes such as these.

[carmenjonze]

There is no original constitutional right to vote. What few rights we do have were established much later on, in a series of amendments. These amendments have been argued, skirted, outwitted, and outright violated by local election officials and (on occasion) by armed mobs ever since.

Even the one person, one vote doctrine that is so highly quoted originates from a 1960s SCOTUS decision, as reinforced by a couple of subsequent ones, and now under attack from the Republican court.

Two very good points!

[carmenjonze]

As to ID, in some states anyone over a certain age can get a valid ID. That doesn’t mean they should vote.

Voting and IDs is a non-starter except for people like you who wish to re-impose the poll tax.

You white cons speak out of one side of your mouth saying you don't want gubbamint overreach, then speak right out of the other when it comes to getting the government to impose hardships on those not like yourselves.

I’m okay with ...

Who really gives a sh#t.

[marindem01]

I don’t disagree with you on election fraud.

Post your proof. Site specific instances of Election Fraud including location, person who committed the fraud and the out come.

We know the Traitor wanted both the Governor of Georgia and Secreatry of State of Georgia to commit Election Fraud, he want them to find enough vote to throw the Georgia election to him.

[Libertas]

Voting and IDs is a non-starter except for people like you who wish to re-impose the poll tax.

You white cons speak out of one side of your mouth saying you don't want gubbamint overreach, then speak right out of the other when it comes to getting the government to impose hardships on those not like yourselves.



Who really gives a sh#t.

Unless the govt walks up to you and hands you an ID, it is clearly unconstitutional to require it to vote especially since it is required to register.

Look how much we have given in on this simple and basic legal issue.

[ProfX]

The argument for Photo ID usually seems to devolve into "oh such IDs are harder to forge".

Uh huh. Have these people worked in a bar? Have they seen all the fake "COVID cards" with "photos' circulating around? Maybe that was true in 1985. Dunno, it certainly isn't true today.

So, yes, Lib, thank you for reminding us you have to present a photo ID in order to register to vote (although - I believe - relevant point - the registration process can be flexible on what serves as such) ... and that long before this requirement existed, people DID present a form of ID in order to vote ... called their voter registration card.

"Hurr burr that can be forged!" Uh huh, and today in 2022 where everybody has PCs with Photoshop and Cardmaker programs, how is that not true for Photo IDs?

Question: seriously: why can't you just present a utility bill? Those often have unique things on them that are hard for forgers to get, and what vote-fraud perpetrator would go to the trouble of breaking into somebody's mailbox and stealing their utility bill in order to impersonate them?

Sheesh. Are you really telling me there are scofflaws out there who would steal "Bob Jones utility bill" in order to impersonate him and vote in his name?

[Libertas]

I know plenty of folks who could not vote if they needed a utility bill.

Why did we give in on this unconstitutional requirement in the first place?

[Number6]

The argument for Photo ID usually seems to devolve into "oh such IDs are harder to forge".

Uh huh. Have these people worked in a bar? Have they seen all the fake "COVID cards" with "photos' circulating around? Maybe that was true in 1985. Dunno, it certainly isn't true today.

So, yes, Lib, thank you for reminding us you have to present a photo ID in order to register to vote (although - I believe - relevant point - the registration process can be flexible on what serves as such) ... and that long before this requirement existed, people DID present a form of ID in order to vote ... called their voter registration card.

"Hurr burr that can be forged!" Uh huh, and today in 2022 where everybody has PCs with Photoshop and Cardmaker programs, how is that not true for Photo IDs?

Question: seriously: why can't you just present a utility bill? Those often have unique things on them that are hard for forgers to get, and what vote-fraud perpetrator would go to the trouble of breaking into somebody's mailbox and stealing their utility bill in order to impersonate them?

Sheesh. Are you really telling me there are scofflaws out there who would steal "Bob Jones utility bill" in order to impersonate him and vote in his name?

IDs can be forged just as utility bills can be forged. I was stationed in South Korea in the early 90s and to combat forged ration cards being used at the base Commissary by South Koreans, the military came out with a card with a hologram in it making it harder to forge. Within a month, the base police were arresting people for using a forged copy of the new ration card. The forged card also had an exact copy of the hologram.

[carmenjonze]

Cons who complain about forged documents are not concerned about the documents.

After all, we can hear a pin drop from them about the forged documents used by people in high places in their party to overturn an election.

All they care about is winning by cheating, because that is how they have always won: by excising entire sections of the population from being able to even register, let alone actually cast a ballot.

[gounion]

Fair enough but that cuts both ways.

First I never said that the election was invalid in any respect. That being said, I also never claimed there isn’t voter fraud. I assume the election is valid unless proved otherwise. Further, there is no way any credible way to properly investigate and demonstrate irregularities that would overturn an election in the time between Election Day and inauguration. So all this challenging of electors by either party is just political theatre. It undermines confidence in our election system. If there are weaknesses in the system, the best method to correct those is thru legislation (at the state level IMO) or in the courts after inauguration. Trying to stop or overturn an election after certification is just asking for trouble. I said as much after Biden was declared the winner.

I work in a field that centers on process controls. Perhaps we approach this issue from different perspectives. One can assume there is no fraud because one sees no fraud is one way. The other is to put reasonable processes and procedures in place to insure that the desired outcome( free and fair elections) is achieved as designed. I am in the latter camp.

So I think most voters agree that requiring a photo ID to vote is a reasonable ask for example. I think sending blank absentee ballots to everyone on a voter role that we refuse to allow people to update and properly maintain is asking for trouble. Now there may be ways to mitigate some of these concerns to accomplish both sides. I am open to such discussion. But I am not inclined to look the other way based on vague assertions anymore than you.

We have a constitution that protects the right to vote. We have courts to adjudicate these disputes. The same courts that were available to Trump and his supporters.

Yes there IS a way to credibly investigate in that time frame. Actually, that's what WAS done. Attorney General Barr told the entire Justice Department to look into allegations of voter fraud. They DID. They found NO credible allegations at all. The ones that Trump kept talking about were investigated and found to be baseless. He saw ZERO irregularities that would have made any difference. Trump's head of elections was fired when he came out and said this was the most honest election in modern times (which it was).

And what's wrong with people bringing things like their utility bills? It's always worked well before, and short of genetic testing, anything else can be faked.

[Libertas]

Sinema and Manchin or is it just Sinema, not sure but voting rights are no way now.

I wish I had faith in this but I never did. Money is involved and we have two scumbags in our party.

Try and survive covid and then do understand that the GOP is coming for you next, in a very real and violent way.

[Drak]

Sinema and Manchin or is it just Sinema, not sure but voting rights are no way now.

I wish I had faith in this but I never did. Money is involved and we have two scumbags in our party.

Neither are Dems. It's the perfect set up for Mitch, because the Dems then take the blame for not getting the Biden agenda done. Both Sinema and Manchin are Koch owned.

[carmenjonze]

Neither are Dems. It's the perfect set up for Mitch, because the Dems then take the blame for not getting the Biden agenda done. Both Sinema and Manchin are Koch owned.

Both Sinema and Manchin are cons.

Can't be trusted.