Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Stop: We Are Hitting Ourselves

G2A Border Security Revisited took an interesting turn.
"Sanders was attempting to stage a Socialistic coup and would have been happy to take a huge amount of wealth from the savers/investors and give to the spenders/debtors.  Now I agree that Trump uses the same tools, I am not sure why you are hesitant to agree." G2A

"Good Lord, Sanders was trying to win an election not stage a coup. Come in off the ledge. " Sean

"Another thing Trump and Sanders had in common. :-) And yet Liberals insist Trump wants to end American democracy as we know it. Maybe both sides should come off the ledge. By the way, I agree that coup was not the correct word... The correct word was Revolution." G2A

"Revolution: Something we citizens of the United States of American can be thankful for.  But maybe you can prove that Sanders was inciting hatred instead of pointing out the problems with the way we are governed. You have that opportunity." Joel

"Wiki Political Revolution "Such political revolutions are envisioned to overthrow undemocratic governments of bureaucratic privilege, replacing them with governments based on workers' democracy while maintaining state owned property relations."

I wonder if we would be the first fully transparent Democracy to have a revolution against ourselves?" G2A
What I thought was fascinating was Joel's comment about "pointing out the problems with the way we are governed".  To me it seems that he thinks "someone" out there is governing us...  Now from a Conservative this would be a non-statement since they are certain the "Government" is a self fulfilling animal of it's own making. 


But to hear a Liberal say this is fascinating.  To me it often seems that they see our "Government" as a benevolent effective force for good. I mean what is their answer for almost every social ill, "Let's raise taxes, pass a regulation, start a new department, spend more on the existing departments, strengthen tenure and pay for Public Workers, etc.


Thoughts?

68 comments:

John said...

According to the Elections Project it looks like only ~60% of the population even shows for the Presidential election cycles... And only ~40% in the off years...

Since this is the case, we must be an incredibly happy self absorbed apathetic country. I don't get a sense of people wanting a Revolution and massive changes.

John said...

By the way, I am not trying to be negative. My simple point is that the USA is overall one of the best countries in the world to live in and I think most of us appreciate that, therefore we are in no hurry to make big changes.

It seems to me that only the far Right and far Left folks are the only ones fighting for "Big Changes".

jerrye92002 said...

If I may summarize: liberals believe that our government is a faceless bureaucracy that can do no wrong, while conservatives believe that our government is a faceless bureaucracy that can do no right.

And before Hiram steps in to remind us that we choose our government, I am reminded of why we have a Republic and not a democracy. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." – H. L. Mencken

John said...

I guess that was my point. Who do the Sanders voters want to rebel against?

Are they angry at the people who take the time to learn about the issues and vote?

Or are they angry about the politicians and public employees who keep their numbers large, their jobs secure and their compensation / benefits high?

Or do they truly believe that our political system is full of corruption? If so, how did they choose Clinton as their candidate? I mean she has had as many questionable dealings with money, big donors and potential conflict of interest of almost any politician I can think of.

John said...

Copied over from Border post.

"The [desirable] term I keep hearing is "conservative revolution." That is, putting "things" back the way they were before the great liberal transformations of FDR, LBJ, and BO. It took us at least 50 years to get in this pickle, but if Trump can reverse the last 8 he will be doing us a great service. " Jerry

Sean said...

"Who do the Sanders voters want to rebel against?"

Have you really not been paying attention?

"Or do they truly believe that our political system is full of corruption? If so, how did they choose Clinton as their candidate?"

Well, they picked Sanders as their candidate first. To answer why they prefer Clinton to Trump, let's ask the question: how has Donald J.Trump proposed to reform how government works?

The answer is: he hasn't. Trump merely asserts that through his magnificence, he will be able to manage the bureaucracy better. But there's no proposal for long-lasting reform that would outlive a Trump presidency.

Clinton, on the other hand, has proposed some very real steps forward that appeal to Sanders supporters. Like her judicial appointment philosophy, for instance, and what that likely means for Citizens United.

jerrye92002 said...

Among the many things that bother me about Hillary Clinton are her priorities and policy proposals. Picking Citizens United-- a free speech and fairness issue-- or Climate Change, the greatest Pseudoscientific hoax of all time that would greatly harm our economy now for a near-zero possible benefit in the far future, strikes me as largely unhinged. Maybe that is how she appeals to Sanders supporters, I don't know.

Sean said...

" I mean she has had as many questionable dealings with money, big donors and potential conflict of interest of almost any politician I can think of."

Check Trump's history. Lots of skeletons rattling around in that closet.

jerrye92002 said...

I might suggest that the difference was that Trump's "misdealings" were in the private sector, while Hillary's were largely in the public sector and can legitimately be termed "corruption." She is applying for a public sector position and has a track record there. Trump is the "outsider." How much that matters to you, I don't know.

John said...

Sean,
I agree that the character of both of the candidates are highly suspect.

How about Johnson?

John said...

Johnson / Weld Issues

Sean said...

"I agree that the character of both of the candidates are highly suspect."

I didn't say that.

"How about Johnson?"

He's going to balance the budget without raising taxes? And he refuses to say what he's going to cut? That means he doesn't actually have a plan, or it's so awful that no one would support it if he said what he was going to do.

John said...

Oh come now, after the decades of Clinton centered controversy... Are you really going to say that her character is not highly suspect? I am personally still waiting to read the transcripts of her paid speeches.

What in the world could she have done or said to earn $335,000 legally and with no conflict of interest?

Sean said...

" Are you really going to say that her character is not highly suspect?"

Yes, I am. Because those controversies have largely turned out to be nothing-burgers.

"What in the world could she have done or said to earn $335,000 legally and with no conflict of interest?"

Trump: $1.5M per speech in 2006 & 2007

Trump: $450K per speech in 2014 and 2015 to a scam multilevel marketing group

John said...

But let's repeat... Trump was not a Public Servant...

Nobody cares if people paid him for favors.

Laurie said...

IAWS

I think Hillary has excellent character. I believe the rich have always paid well for a chance to hob nob and have a photo op with elite politicians. I'd pay for that opportunity (if I was was rich)

Sean said...

Groups pay people lots of money to speakers - whether politicians, businessmen, athletes or other celebrities.

If you're going to go on and on about Hillary's so-called "controversies" (which pretty much all evaporate under scrutiny), then dig into the long list of Trump foibles, like:

* Trump giving an illegal political donation to the Florida Attorney General, who then promptly shut down an investigation into Trump University. And then he held a fundraiser for her at Mar-A-Lago and charged her 1/28 the going rate for renting the joint out. (If that was someone in the Clinton orbit, we'd never hear the end of that one.)

* That's just one of a long record of Trump campaign finance shenanigans, nicely detailed here.

* Trump ran his Atlantic City casinos into bankruptcy within a year after they opened; leaving others holding the bag while he walked away clean

* Trump's long history of stiffing people who did work for him

* Trump's long history of skirting immigration law -- from the Polish workers who worked on Trump Tower to the use of foreign workers at his resorts to his model management company lying on visa applications

* Trump's $750,000 fine for breaking antitrust laws

* Trump's ties to mob figures in New York

* Trump's history of racial discrimination in housing developments he owned

I trust Hillary Clinton far more than I do Donald Trump.

Sean said...

"But let's repeat... Trump was not a Public Servant..."

Neither was Hillary Clinton when she gave the speeches.

And before you give me the "everyone knows she was running for President" line, talk to me about Rudy Giuliani collecting $11M in 2007 before his Presidential run. Or Mitt Romney's speech income before his 2012 run. Or Jeb Bush's millions on the speaking circuit over the last few years.

jerrye92002 said...

I tire quickly of this "tu quoque" line of argumentation. John has already gone further than I would and said that "the character of both candidates is highly suspect."
Even at that, it simply must be that, to the degree character matters in a candidate (and some character flaws, I assume, ought to matter more than others, or more than they do), one must nonetheless be better overall, character included, than the other. Personally I prefer a heavier weighting on their credible policy preferences, though admittedly credibility is a function of character.

John said...

Eric just did an Excellent Piece on this.

jerrye92002 said...

And yet HIS bias is readily apparent. A good piece, not excellent IMHO.

John said...

Oh come now, a far Left column writer stops to at least evaluate his biases.

I would say that is excellent... I wish more people would do that.

Laurie said...

fyi Eric Black is much more center left than far left. A far left person would not write that column.

John said...

Ok. I agree. Kind of. If I need to. :-)

John said...

We got a bit off topic. Surprise !!!

So who exactly are we supposed to be rebelling against?

"pointing out the problems with the way we are governed"

Is it the entrenched life long political power brokers like the Clinton's? If it is the Democrats are finding a strange way to rebel.

I personally think we have to accept that we "govern" ourselves by how we vote. And those who choose not to vote apparently are fine with delegating their authority to those who do.

I mean we want low taxes, a lot back in services, we like someone else to carry the risk, while we enjoy the freedom, etc. No wonder we are $20 Trillion in Debt and have a ton of unfunded entitlements...

It is like the silly SW Light Rail funding model. The local folks only have to put up 10% and the other 90% magically appears from the Feds... Even though the train rail is all in one county of one State... Why in the world are the Feds involved at all?

Maybe some questionable force is governing us???

jerrye92002 said...

The problem is that voting is simply not enough. Something like 95% of incumbents get re-elected to Congress. They (at least Democrats) do that by promising everything to everybody when they know it isn't possible. Then they (Democrats) start regulating the #$%^ out of everything, attempting to control every aspect of our lives so that our lives will be "perfect," and therefore their utopian dreams can never arrive without more tax, spend, and control. That is what needs rebelling against, and putting them out of power is barely scratching the surface. After that, we need some radical Republicans to actually push back the tide, with a vocal crowd behind them harassing the media to prevent backwash. That would be a revolution worth having.

John said...

Now that is what I would expect from a Conservative. I mean they have watched the cost of government increase from 7% of GDP to 37% of GDP over the past 100 years. Which means individual citizens have lost direct control of ~30% of their potential income. This means we are working 3+ months a year and we do not get much of a say in where the money goes. And they have watched the rules, regulations and number of public employees increase by probably 100 times over the same period. So I get their out rage...

Though I think they are just as responsible for the mess as the Liberals... All politicians promise people what they want. That is how they get elected.

So what exactly are the Liberals out raged about?
- Government spending is at record highs
- Public employee unions have a lot of power
- Public schools have a lot of power
- We have regulations protecting almost every person from almost everything
- etc

What more do they want?

Sean said...

"Is it the entrenched life long political power brokers like the Clinton's? If it is the Democrats are finding a strange way to rebel."

The question, as it always comes down to, is what's the alternative? What reforms to how government works is Trump proposing? (I haven't heard anything specific -- have you?) During the primary, he made a big deal about not being beholden to the big-money funders in the GOP, but he's now reliant on them for the general election campaign.

Sean said...

Going back to Hillary for a moment. I'm more than willing to accept the idea that any politician might be corrupt. But there has to be evidence of actual corruption. The recent wave of Clinton Foundation stuff revealed nothing. The most substantial "favor" they found that was actually granted was giving someone better seating at an event. Every scandal that Hillary was supposed to be involved in has proved to be less than it was thought originally.

And let's also point out that the reason some of these things have come to light (like the recent Clinton Foundation stuff or the speaking fees) is because of information the Clintons have released. Yet we haven't seen any of Donald Trump's tax returns so we can't verify any of his claims about how rich he is or how little debt he has.

And let's also point out that the Clintons get held to a different standard. After he left the first Bush Administration, Colin Powell started a nonprofit agency. It took donations from lots of companies and individuals. When he joined the second Bush Administration, he turned the foundation over to his wife and they continued to take donations from these same companies and individuals. One of the leading funders of the foundation in its early years was Enron. When Powell was SoS in the Bush Administration, State attempted to intervene on Enron's behalf when the company ran into some contract problems with a local government in India. Another one of the top donors to Powell's organization was AT&T. Powell's son was on the Board of the FCC (and was its chair from 2001-2005), the regulatory agency with primary responsibility for AT&T's business. In his role on the FCC board, the younger Powell was considered a very friendly vote to the large telecom companies.

If you changed the name from "Powell" to "Clinton", you'd have weeks of stories and investigations and allegations of "pay to play".

Sean said...

" They (at least Democrats) do that by promising everything to everybody when they know it isn't possible. "

Democrats aren't the ones promising you can cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. That's the Republicans.

John said...

Sean,
It is your choice if you want to compare your candidate to other people who also have shown questionable judgment to rationalize your support, or against someone with good character.

I may vote for Trump, but I will acknowledge that he is a narcissistic self serving person as I do it. And then I will balance that against his other more positive attributes, and the other possibilities.

As for Clinton's past, most of us would be fired if we caused the strong perception of conflict of interest that she has. That does not mean that you should not vote for her. Just accept that this is the way she is, and hope that her behavior does not too negatively impact how she behaves as President.

Since I own a lot of bank stocks, I hope she pays them back for the multiple millions they have given her... :-)

Sean said...

"It is your choice if you want to compare your candidate to other people who also have shown questionable judgment to rationalize your support, or against someone with good character."

I'm not rationalizing my support at all. I disagree with her judgment as it comes to the use of the private e-mails, but I don't find her to be fundamentally corrupt. People have manufactured a lot of smoke around her, but there's no there there when it comes to all of these so-called scandals.

John said...

Well, I will hope you are correct but I won't hold my breath.

And as I noted pro-banks is good with me.

John said...

Oops wrong Link

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, that is a most fascinating take on the situation. You disagree with her judgment on (whatever) but don't attribute that to corruption on her part. I'm forced to agree; that most people do not set out with evil intent to lie, cheat or steal, at least not politicians. I've long said that liberals (and for our purposes, Hillary is one) absolutely believe what they say at the moment they say it. Unfortunately they not only are highly tolerant of cognitive dissonance, holding a completely opposite thought in their minds at the same time, but they make pronouncements devoid of any plausible reality like "this is the moment the seas will cease their rise" or "I didn't send or receive any classified information." Mighty hard to be SOS and not have (C) info go by you at some point. Now either she believes that and is criminally negligent, or she has violated the law and is covering it up. That doesn't mean she is corrupt, just that she got caught doing something she thought she was, rightly or wrongly, entitled to do. What's worrisome is she still does.

I guess my standard is to look not at what was said but what was done. If what was done turns out to be a good thing, as promised, hooray. If nothing was done about what was promised, that's pretty much SOP at least for Republicans. If what was done turns out opposite what was promised, that's probably a liberal-backed government program, and when they then tell you it's a success, that is an outright lie, even if, by some mental legerdemain, they believe it.

jerrye92002 said...

John, that looks like a bad investment. It dropped 25% in 3 months, then recovered. Way too volatile to suit me. Look at FAGIX.

John said...

Oh come now. I didn't buy in to Banks until ~2012. Since them it is up 60%... yipppeee.

Whereas it looks like FAGIX has been kind of flat over that period.

And our friends at BAC did even better since their low of ~$6.

Anonymous said...

"Mighty hard to be SOS and not have (C) info go by you at some point."

And the (C) stands for what?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
My guess is classified (ie classified information)

Now since you started this whole post...
- Who is governing us?
- What are they doing that we need to rebel against it/them?

Laurie said...

John, I have a comment related to your comment that you may vote for Trump. Once again I am going to rely on Kevin Drum's words to express an opinion I totally agree with:

"What the fuck is going on? Donald Trump! Donald fucking Trump! He's a jackass reality TV star. He's goddamn clueless. For fuck's sake, this can't be happening. Can it? Fucking fuck. Why isn't anyone calling it out? It's like Alice in fucking Wonderland. How can we be doing this? Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck."

I am usually not a fan of profanity but this little rant cracked me up. When I watched Trump last night in the MSNBC forum I just kept repeating "idiot" over and over to myself. And what is scary is I have come to the view that he could actually win if he could pull himself together for a month and act presidential. The bar for this is very low and I think it is possible that he could do it.

here is a link to the Drum post if anyone would like more context to his remarks.

Tell Us How You Really Feel, Kevin

one last note regarding your willingness to consider a vote for Trump, John -This has led me to pretty much dismiss all your views now. I do still click through your blog to see if Sean has anything interesting to say and read a few comments here and there.

John said...

Laurie,
I promise to continue to read your comments and links even though you support Clinton... :-)

Probably one of greatest frustrations after 1300+ posts, 20,000+ published comments and 170,000+ page views is that folks on the Left are still solidly there and the folks on the right are still solidly there.

Maybe we Americans are doomed for the most part to be deeply divided. And the reality is that our far Left and far Right politicians just represent this reality. Well let's hope the country stays somewhat balanced or I think things could get ugly and we may have some real revolts on our hands.

John said...

Laurie,
One more note. If you choose to leave us, thanks for sharing your thoughts over the past few years !!!

Sean said...

The recently released e-mails between Powell and Clinton show that Powell took active steps to conduct business away from his .gov email as well. Should we line him up for the cell next to to Hillary?

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, it appears both you and Kevin Drum have been paying attention to the MSM (aka the lamestream media or drive-by media). If I believed what they told me about Trump I wouldn't vote for him either. But I trust them even less than I trust the Clintons. I listen first-hand to what Trump says, and apparently so do a lot of others. Get past the spin put on it by liberals, Democrats, etc. and you find out that he is basically correct right down the line about HOW the country is "on the wrong track," with which 2/3 of us agree. You might have to overlook his bombastic "reality TV" delivery, too, but that is also attractive because he so outrages the media.

Please stay on, because yours is a perspective some of us do not otherwise get. We appreciate your opinion even if we disagree.

John said...

Sean,
I have no desire to throw Clinton or Powell in jail.

But if Powell was running for the office of President, I certainly think the voters should take into account all of his questionable behaviors. Not just say that it is his opponents making things up or blowing them out of proportion.

I ask no more than that of the Clinton Voters. Please feel free to vote for her, just acknowledge that she is human and flawed like all of us.

And don't try to turn Trump into the Devil because of his flaws.

To me they are just somewhat self serving politicians with different views and personal mannerisms. Besides I am 99% confident that Clinton will win.

jerrye92002 said...

Just like you were 99% confident he couldn't get the nomination? Would the DFL be trying so hard to force him off the ballot if they thought they had a sure thing going?

Sean said...

What the Powell comparison shows is that Clinton isn't the sort of maniacal schemer or supervillanous character she's made out to be. She made essentially the same decisions regarding her e-mails and her family's charitable foundation as Powell. And we know lots of other politicians have done the same thing with their e-mails, too. The only way Hillary Clinton is an exception to the rule is that she's the only one being asked to pay a political price for these decisions. The Bush White House largely operated on the RNC e-mail system and made 21 million e-mails vanish. To this day, Colin Powell has refused to make his private e-mails available to the federal government in order to comply with records retention requirements.

Clinton's ordinary, banal sins exist, yes, but they pale in comparison to Trump's. Trump engaged in *actual* illegal behavior with the political donations from his foundation to the Florida Attorney General. Trump *actually* paid a settlement for racial discrimination in some of his housing developments. Trump *actually* paid a fine for antitrust violations.

Sean said...

The DFL is trying to force the cash-strapped Minnesota GOP to spend resources on defending the lawsuit instead of spending it on legislative races. They're not actually concerned about Trump winning the state.

John said...

Given how screwed up the GOP primaries were with the large number of candidates and the lack of any really strong charismatic candidate, I don't think I was ever 99% certain that Trump would not win.

If it had been Trump and Kasich from day one, then I think Kasich would have been the nominee. Kasich started to impress me after hearing him speak a few times.

John said...

Regarding What Jerry and Sean are Discussing

jerrye92002 said...

Well, first off, it seems the article is wrong. Trump-Pence WAS on the sample ballot. The DFL certainly isn't asking for them to be added. But it also shows the depths to which the DFL will stoop to win an election. Of course, that is how Obama won in Illinois, so I guess the precedent is set.

I think almost all the 16 were charisma-challenged to some degree, but Trump had the ability to attract media attention. I think if it had been a two-man race at the start, almost anyone, especially Cruz, might have gotten the nod. Trump had the benefit of being "unique" among the 16, with the others splitting the non-Trump vote. Kasich staying in was particularly regrettable.

John said...

I thought this was interesting.

"As Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Keith Downey told reporters at the Minnesota State Fair, the party “forgot” to elect alternate presidential electors at the state convention earlier this year.

Then, after being notified that they had failed to provide the names of alternative electors by the Secretary of State’s office, Republicans decided to appoint alternate electors in a closed-door meeting — rather than electing them.

But that could be problematic too. James Carson, the Chair of the Republican Party in Minnesota’s Fourth Congressional District, said that based on the wording of Minnesota Statutes 208.03, which outlines how presidential electors are to be selected, “it is likely none of the Republican electors were legally elected.”

Sean said...

"Of course, that is how Obama won in Illinois, so I guess the precedent is set."

Oh? Do tell.

jerrye92002 said...

cheating?

jerrye92002 said...

By the way, the whole notion that the Party "failed" is nonsense. The law says electors and alternates must be "elected by the convention" it does not say HOW. It is within the Party Constitution, approved by the Convention, that the authority is delegated by the Convention and those rules were followed.

Sean said...

It seems to me that "cheating" would be trying to get on the ballot with invalid signatures. Politics ain't beanbag -- that's why both parties invest in poll watchers on election day.

John said...

I guess I see both sides of this one.

Yes cheating is unacceptable and should be eliminated. That is the concept of the basic Voter ID laws.

The other side is how much do we want parties using the fine technicalities of the bureaucratic process as a method to delay and disrupt clean questionable voting? Like the use of over the top voter ID laws. Or these idiots suing because the MN GOP chose their reps in a different manner...

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, once again you offer new information. Does the DFL really put poll challengers into precincts? I've never seen one. What I have seen is the DFL legislature and Secretary of State pass ever-increasing strictures on poll watchers, including renaming them to challengers with far less authority. I have seen DFL election judges agree to be Republicans for the day for the sake of legal "balance" in the precincts. I have seen many cases of obvious voter "fraud" of one sort and another, including the SOS clearly violating the law for what seems to be partisan advantage.

As for Voter ID, I suppose there /could/ be such a thing as "over the top" but the fundamental idea is an obvious way to stop voter fraud, and not just "impersonation," which opponents say doesn't exist. There are all kinds of fraud, it is obvious and it IS enough to swing elections, and it ought to be stopped. Odd, that in almost all cases where these laws are challenged, opponents are unable to find anyone with actual "standing" (i.e. prevented from voting). Apparently, only fictitious voters are prevented from voting, and that seems like a Good Thing, at least as far as honest elections go. Some people apparently don't WANT honest elections.

John said...

Jerry,
Please provide a credible source that has proven that this "voter fraud" exists to a point where it can swing an election.

Now I support the non-strict photo ID laws like those SD, FL, etc have just because it should not be a burden for any normal citizen. And I want to make anyone who is thinking of committing voter fraud know that they will face some scrutiny from the election personnel.

However as far as I know, no one has any proof that voter fraud is a real issue.

John said...

Jerry,
I think both sides are playing games that they should not be...

Or do you truly believe that White GOP people are above trying to throw up road blocks to prevent Democratic voters from having their voices heard?

From that source...
"When it came to early voting, North Carolina admitted that it eliminated voting on a Sunday before the election because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

The court called this “as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race — specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.”"

My goal is to make it easy for every legal voter to vote. This does not appear to be the goal in NC...

jerrye92002 said...

The court was absolutely wrong. There is absolutely nothing about reducing early voting, eliminating same-day, requiring a photo ID that "targets blacks." It's insultingly racist. There is, however, a great opportunity for fraud if those provisions are stricken. Here is an example: The GOP has been trying to either eliminate same-day registration or require that same-day registrants receive "provisional ballots" that are like an absentee ballot and only counted AFTER the voter has been verified. Right now, a same-day registrant casts a regular ballot and it gets counted. THEN, the Secretary of State sends out a postcard telling them they are officially registered in such-and-so precinct. In a recent election, 17,000 of those cards were returned saying "no such person or address." 17,000 votes could EASILY change an election result. Dayton won by only 8,000 votes, remember, and Franken by 300. Then we have precincts with more votes cast than eligible voters, ballots found in car trunks, stacks of ballots with identical markings for Dayton and ONLY Dayton (during the recount), and 1600 felons who voted in the last election who should have been denied. Do not tell me fraud does not occur. Just because our hyper-partisan Secretary of State doesn't look for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

John said...

Please provide a source... Or I must have missed this news story...

jerrye92002 said...

How about an eye-witness? How about official SOS records? How about the court filings? You will have to look it up because you will never see the "news story." It doesn't fit the narrative that "voter fraud doesn't exist." That voter integrity and voter ID is racist flows directly from that narrative, thus hiding the truth that it is necessary.

Sean said...

"In a recent election, 17,000 of those cards were returned saying "no such person or address." 17,000 votes could EASILY change an election result. "

But you forget the rest of the story. Each of those cards is then turned over to the auditor in their respective counties, who have to investigate each of them. A vast majority of the cards are the result of typos in the entry of the address data. In others, the voter has moved since election day. For any card that can't be explained, the county auditors are then required to turn them over the county attorney for additional investigation and potential prosecution. In 2014, this process resulted in just 45 cases being turned over to prosecutors (and many of the cases that go the county attorney never get prosecuted because they find information that proves the person is a legal voter). Google "postal verification cards minnesota" and you can find the reports.

"ballots found in car trunks"

Oh, for cripes sake, this old canard? No ballots were ever "found in car trunks".

MinnPost explainer

jerrye92002 said...

Sean, the point is that those 17,000 ballots were counted BEFORE voter ID was properly established. I have seen enough of those registrations, and entered a few, to believe that typos are indeed possible, but I don't consider the lack of prosecutions to be proof of the lack of attempted election fraud. There are just too many ways to do it and we should be trying to reduce those rather than fighting those reforms tooth and nail.

And again, your cite is a good explanation for the 32 "found" ballots in that one case. It doesn't mean that such hasn't happened elsewhere. The claim that "voter fraud doesn't exist" is not provable unless there is a rigorous search to find it or, better yet, prevent it.

Sean said...

" It doesn't mean that such hasn't happened elsewhere. "

Anything could theoretically happen anywhere, sure. But if you're going to make the accusation of "ballots being found in the trunk" there should be some evidence of ballots being found in the trunk.

jerrye92002 said...

The incident you referenced has, I believe, been corrected in that absentee ballots are now counted at City Hall and only the names forwarded to the precincts to prevent double-voting.

You are correct about the trunk, it seems. So where else can ballots be "found"?

jerrye92002 said...

Here's a few statistics from our friend Ann Coulter:
"Next time you hear Hillary, or any other Democrat, ranting about Republicans wanting to disenfranchise minorities by requiring voter ID, keep the following in mind:

* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).

* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).

* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters .

* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.

* The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

* Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout .

* In one Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters .

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote."