A very Liberal FB acquaintance had an unfortunate thing happen. He put his work tools in the box of his pickup truck in preparation for the next day's job. Unfortunately some criminal cut his tonneau cover and stole the tools.
And he went on FB to vent about this event, and to mention how terrible it is that this person's job is to drive around at night and take from others without knowledge of the damage they inflict.
I unfortunately chose this moment to voice my frustration against the welfare state, tax the wealthy and anti-police supporters. Which of course was not appreciated...
I am sorry for your loss of the tools and hope they catch the criminals. 🙁
However I do find it ironic when a Liberal is frustrated by "forced giving". 🙂
I am certain that unfortunate criminal needed the tools / money more than you... 😮
I have since deleted the comment and said sorry. But I am curious if what I wrote was Bad, Moderate or Okay in your opinion?
Should people who preach High Taxes, Lots of Handouts and Defund the Police be vocal when some criminal robs them? Or should they be thankful they could help out that desperate person?
I could just imagine if the officers had pulled over that van cruising the neighborhoods in the middle of the night... This would be the same group saying the officers shouldn't be doing that? 😮
It is so confusing...
98 comments:
I think many liberals want higher taxes on the rich, not theft from middle class working people. I rate your comment as moderately bad.
Taking money from some people and giving it to others arbitrarily is rarely a good idea.
Especially for those who get something for nothing, or more for bad choices.
As I often say, imagine if you did that with your kids. :-O
I agree that the timing was wrong. He needed to vent and mourn... And he needed support. I was an idiot.
We make choices in life. Whether or not each of us views taxation as a lawful way to pay for government services, or as an illegal taking, in other words, theft is a choice we make. The broader question is whether the government is legitimate, or just a mob with tanks.
I reject this view, but I have to say, I feel it's attraction. It isn't easy for me to accept election of presidents who lost the popular vote. I am sure, it is difficult for others to accept a president whose election was legitimate.
My question is this. If we make the decision to regard the process in place for election of our presidents as illegitimate, something "both sides" for different reasons are willing to do, where do we go from that? If our system is illegitimate, how do we restore it's legitimacy? Is that something we want to do? Or is it something we even want to do? If electoral politics is not the source of legitimacy, where or what is the alternative?
What will life look like in a country without legitimacy? Is it necessarily a tyranny? Can we expect genocide in short order like Nazi Germany? Why would we choose that path?
--Hiram
I agree with you that election results should be honored and taxes paid.
On this topic though, I just found it ironic that people who usually support more open borders, more money for nothing, fewer police, etc bemoan getting robbed.
These folks were and are likely against what happened to Daunte Wright.
A young man who committed this type of robbery regularly based on what I have read.
We as a country decided to share the costs of public things like roads, fire departments, police, etc. A majority of us think it is not fair when people and companies do not pay their fair share toward our common good. That is an entirely different thing from some lowlife stealing those tools.
Daunte Wright was a lowlife (based on what I read) but he did not deserve death during an arrest. His fate belonged in the hands of the courts not the police.
I agree with you that election results should be honored and taxes paid.
Sure, but the question is whether they are legitimate. In occupied France, people went to work every day. They obeyed traffic rules, and they paid their taxes. They made movies. "Children of Paradise" one of the greatest movies ever made was produced in Nazi occupied France. Nevertheless, the regime under which those things happened was illegitimate and was responsible for the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. Is that what we want for America? Is that acceptance of political authority without legitimacy good enough?
--Hiram
A young man who committed this type of robbery regularly based on what I have read.
I can tell you, without political legitimacy, it isn't robbery. Without law there is no lawfulness.
--Hiram
Should people who preach High Taxes, Lots of Handouts and Defund the Police be vocal when some criminal robs them?
I always have a problem with these kinds of linkages. Tax policy is very different from law enforcement policy.
This is tax season, and although he is no longer on the air, this is when my inner Soucheray's voice seems to speak to me. Sooch, whenever a liberal, especially a rich liberal, says he is comfortable with higher taxes, would say "Why don't you send the government a check?" implying that the lib was a hypocrite. I apply this logic to my own case. I am a liberal, and not too badly off. I have no principled objection to people like me paying higher taxes. Yet, when I prepare my taxes I take advantage of pretty much every tax break I can. I claim all my charitable deductions, all medical expenses, and pretty much anything else I legally can to reduce my tax bill. In a variety of other ways, I structure my finances to reduce tax liability, and believe me that has a huge impact.
By doing those things, am I a hypocrite? Should I be wracked with either guilt or shame? Should I apologize to the less fortunate, who don't have access to the huge tax loopholes avaialable to me and who struggle far more to pay their tax bill than I do? People who pay a much higher percentage of their wealth in taxes than I do? These are the questions I ask myself this time of year, but I admit, that process hasn't resulted in my sending the government any extra checks.
--Hiram
I think your comment was sharp and accurate, however, you committed a faux pas that only occurs online, and never in face to face company. First, you ASSUMED and Labeled this individual (verbally dodging the direct accusation, but we all know what you meant). Then you told the truth as you see it. I would say it was insensitive, and the point was thereby lost.
Hiram, you have hit upon the core question. We supposedly have a government "of the people, etc." but it is only legitimate to the degree we all pretty much agree to its scope of authority, AND to the degree we see legitimacy in elections and the exercise of that authority. Last I saw, 52% do not believe Joe Biden won fair and square, and the problem isn't that disbelief, but rather that there are too many "loopholes" in our elections system that would ALLOW an election to be stolen. And we see Republicans trying to close those holes and Democrats resisting or even trying to expand them. It DOES NOT MATTER whether these flaws were exploited or not, it is their existence, and the POSSIBILITY that denies legitimacy to the winner.
One other thing. Whenever I hear somebody moan about a "fair share" of taxes, I just want to scream. It may be a thing for liberals, because it is a truly fantastic notion. Under the current 10 million words of IRS regulations, it is absolutely impossible to know what any one person legitimately owes, let alone relative to another person. Even at its most basic, a "rich" person can legitimately pay much LESS than a middle-class person, or can be taxed at many times the PERCENTAGE, not just dollars. The FAIR tax solves that problem.
If people are starving and don't have shelter, and other people have have enough money for a hundred lifetimes, it is not the faults of the poor that are the problem. It is the greed of the wealthy.
Moose
BS. Explain, please, how the wealthy "steal" from the poor?
We supposedly have a government "of the people, etc." but it is only legitimate to the degree we all pretty much agree to its scope of authority.
A choice to make legitimacy dependent on things which all are required to agree is a choice to reject the concept of legitimacy.
If that's where we are, where do we go?
In 2016, a candidate who lost the popular vote became the president of the United States. Is it possible for there to be a bigger "loophole" than that? Still, he was recognized as president. Hillary conceded the race the day after the election. She attended the inauguration. As did the incumbent president. I assure you there were just as many loopholes then as there were in 2020. Had anyone wanted to find them, there were just as many grainy videos of people doing things for which there was no immediate explanation. That's in the nature of what it means to be a grainy video.
If we don't except the legitimacy of government what's the next step? What's at the end of the process?
--Hiram
WLP,
You are correct that Daunte should not have been shot during his questioning.
He also should not have tried to flee that questioning / arrest.
He also should not have tried to rob a woman or brandish a gun in public.
Now as a society do we really want to stop officers from pulling people over and asking people questions when they see something suspicious?
And are we ready to accept the likely consequence of additional burglaries and robberies?
ipso facto
Moose
ipso facto = "by that very fact or act : as an inevitable result"
Now as a society do we really want to stop officers from pulling people over and asking people questions when they see something suspicious?
We don't necessarily want that, but I don't know if there is an alternative to that right now. Pretextual stops are probably a thing of the past along with police enforcement of nondangerous motor vehicle violations.
--Hiram
"Now as a society do we really want to stop officers from pulling people over and asking people questions when they see something suspicious?"
The problem is what qualifies as "something suspicious" isn't enforced consistently. So we're going to have to take that discretion out of their hands and put more rules around it.
Somehow I think "more rules" means less preventative efforts and fewer criminals caught...
Oh well... I live in a pretty safe neighborhood and have a locked garage for my vehicles and tools.
Did you ever read the book BLINK? The idea that experts can often judge situations without clear understanding of what they knew was wrong...
People in high crime communities complaining about police reminds me of red necks complaining about masks. Both seem determined to make their lives worse.
Hiram, I beg to differ. We did NOT have all the loopholes in 2020 that we had in 2016. some we did, but the 2020 election made them more obvious, and the ones we did not have made some of the old ones easier to exploit. Thank Democrats for suggesting election results may be wrong, and then for insisting that THEIR "victories" must never be questioned, thereby raising LOTS of questions.
John, would you agree to the more general proposition that the Internet, particularly social media, has ruined "civility" and civil discourse?
Jerry,
Not really... Like guns they are just tools...
It is the people who use them who are to blame for any "ruined "civility" and civil discourse.
They choose to reinforce their beliefs and biases rather than to challenge them. It is strange to me.
You don't think the instant retort and anonymity of the 'net' has resulted in us saying things we would NEVER say to a real person?
Not really, I think the vast majority of people on social media are pretty polite and civil.
What I wonder is why Republicans were surprised by outcome of the 2020 elections. Trump had lost the popular vote in 2016 by a significan margin. His polling numbers throughout his presidency were low. He pursued a high risk election strategy of appealing to his base which was both fervent and minority. He presided over a global pandemic which he failed to stop, which set in motion an economic collapse. He was personally repellant and in all likelihood a crook. The issue really was not that he didn't win but did so well in losing. He is now claiming a system is rigged in which he received more votes than any other candidate in history with only one exception. In that election, with those same voters, candidates of his party did well, surprisingly well throughout the country.
I repeat, Why did Republicans think he could win?
==Hiram
Maybe he did.
I did some poll watching duty for the governor's race in Minnesota back in 2010. The orignal count had Dayton by 9 or 10 thousand votes, seemingly a razor thin margin when you consider the total vote cast. Back then, the Republican Party in Minnesota was led by a big spending guy who knew virtually nothing about politics. He had the bright idea of spending a ton of money trying on a recount. Well, as razor thin as the margin was, it was absolutely secure. I spent two days in Chisago County finding that that the original count was absolutely right. Turns out that margin was like a Mount Everest to climb in terms of overturning a vote.
Biden won the election by seven million votes. If Republicans couldn't find even one vote difference in Chisago County, where were they ever going to find 7 million votes across the country?
--Hiram
Jerry it is hard to win with an approval rating in the low 40% range.
He intentionally attacked and alienated people. So he lost...
Not very surprising to most Americans.
It is interesting to me that Trump doesn't do the most basic unifying things. He doesn't join other former presidents in a commercial supporting a vaccine he claims credit for. It's just weird.
--Hiram
"Biden won the election by seven million votes."
Actually, Biden won the electoral college by about 60,000 votes across six key states. Some analyses in just those states estimate as high as TWELVE MILLION potentially fraudulent votes. If that is 99% wrong, Trump still wins.
The idea is that only elections will be considered valid will be those where somewhere no one is willing to say that they have an analysis which says the results are off by 12 million votes. I just don't think that's feasible.
--Hiram
Let's remind ourselves which actually happened. One of the presidential candidates actually solicited cheating from a secretary of state of his party. The answer was no.
--Hiram
It think something that doesn't get asked enough, particularly about the events of January 6th, but more broadly about the 2020 election is, "What was Trump's strategy?"
It's next to impossible to answer questions about that because Trump, although he issues clouds of words, often doesn't use them to reveal his thinking, assuming there is thinking. Was it his intention to disrupt the electoral college vote, which might have meant turning the choice for president over to the House? Was that really his goal? I don't know that he has ever been asked that.
Going forward, what will the strategy for Republicans in the presidential election of 2024? Last year, it seemed clear that Republicans felt or were at least comfortable with the idea that legislatures would play something more than a ministerial role in choosing the electors. Is that their policy now? Republicans are suggesting in pretty clear terms that in order for the process to have validity, Republicans voters must have or at least say they have confidence in that. Should that be the rule going forward? Should we be bound by a process if some of us claim we don't have confidence in it? What role should after the fact "analyses" have in election. If people are willin to say that their analysis shows there was cheating, is that enough to throw elections out? Or to legislatures?
--Hiram
Nobody is saying Biden led the conspiracy, or that there was a conspiracy at all. The facts are that some loopholes existed, some new ones were created, and a great deal of evidence suggests that those loopholes were exploited, in various places, to favor one particular candidate. So long as those loopholes existed, exploited or NOT, we cannot have any confidence in the election results. And nobody should be publicly shouted down for saying it.
Jerry,
The State Election Boards, the State Legislators, all courts and the Congress certified the election.
To keep complaining is just what sore losers do...
Which makes you very much like some DEMs in 2017...
The facts are that some loopholes existed, some new ones were created, and a great deal of evidence suggests that those loopholes were exploited, in various places, to favor one particular candidate.
Suddenly, we go all passive voice. A lot of things were done, loopholes created if you will to make it easier to vote during a time of pandemic. And it is hard to deny that the processes of voting tend to favor the candidates who get the most votes. Is it possible for any of really to have confidence in elections we lose? Will the new norm going forward the one established in the movie "Citizen Kane" where newspapers prepared two headlines, "Kane Wins" and "Fraud at Polls".
--Hiram
"The State Election Boards, the State Legislators, all courts and the Congress certified the election." Based on WHAT? Flawed counting, fraudulent ballots, machine tampering? There was a rush to certify to give "confidence" in the election. But that confidence seems to be sadly misplaced unless you can guarantee that the election was over 99.5% fraud-free. You can't. Interesting there is now a case in federal court demanding that every Biden executive order be set aside because he is NOT the legal President. We'll see how that goes, but "discovery" could be VERY interesting.
I think it is just sad / odd that Jerry wants to totally ignore the popular vote....
The idea that GOPers are satisfied when they win electoral vote and lose the popular vote amazes me.
Talking about winning on a technicality / loop hole...
Biden: 81,282,916
Trump: 74,223,369
And Biden's Popularity is still higher than Trump's ever was.
But somehow they think he won... Amazing...
Hiram, I have to disagree. The winning candidate receives the highest vote COUNT. Now the count may be incorrect--not corresponding to actual ballots, or it may be the count is correct but the ballots are fraudulent. I have seen both situations locally. The solution here is to make the election process secure enough, i.e. closing enough "loopholes," that we no longer question the result. The solution is NOT to insist that there was no fraud, an unprovable and unwarranted assumption.
I have seen both situations locally.
What happened with the fraudulent ballots you have seen personally?
--Hiram
It's impossible to conduct perfect elections. It is doubly impossible to hold elections where everyone is an agreement on the rules. It is impossible to hold elections where people won't dub rules they don't like as "loopholes". So has any election in the history of the world been valid. Is it even possible to hold valid elections on these terms? And if it isn't, how should we choose our leaders?
What's scary is that this election was not close. What happens when elections are close?
--Hiram
The funny thing here is that we accepted the presidency of an obviously incompetent and unfit individual who lost the popular vote and who became president only because of our constitutions biggest and most irrational loophole. And now people are upset because dropboxes might be available for for voting for just a little bit longer than they want.
--Hiram
"What happened with the fraudulent ballots you have seen personally?" They were counted.
As for close, remember that Biden won the electoral college by only 300,000 votes spread across six states. And I've still got the book "If it ain't close they can't cheat." The electoral college is a feature, not a bug.
Because it is "impossible" to conduct a perfect election, is that a reason we should accept all manner of known means of cheating?
It's like pulling teeth here.
I wonder if the electoral votes would have been counted if Republicans were in control of the house.
In 2025, it's likely that the Republicans will control the House. They should be asked now, whether they will accept the results of the election. And the answer I fear most isn't "yes" or "no", it's "I will accept them if I believe the election was fairly and honestly conducted."
--Hiram
Now that is a scary thought...
Would Jerry's ideal solution have been to have a GOP US Congress seize control against the will of the voters and the state / local governments?
That seems to be what he supports?
So, you all think Republicans should just accept the results of a totally fraudulent election?
Jerry,
The voters, the state / local governments, the courts and the US Congress certified the election results...
And you think the Federal Congress should have over ruled them because you think they are wrong.
What kind of a totalitarian supporter are you?
It is so so disappointing how far the Conservatives have fallen... :-(
It is so disappointing how liberal ideologues remain so willingly blind to the obvious, so long as it is leaves them in power.
John, I agree that it is frightening how many people seem to prefer authoritarianism and throw out random numbers to legitimize their arguments. In 2916 Democrats were told to “get over it”. Back atcha, Republicans.
So, you all think Republicans should just accept the results of a totally fraudulent election?
Let's both sides it. Should political parties accept the results of elections? Does it depend on whether or not whether in a nation of 300 million, they can find irregularities. If that answer to that question is no, what is the next step. Will it be to throw the election to the House of Representativds who were of course, elected under a system of those very same irregularities?
--Hiram
Jerry,
If not these folks... Who do you think should be determine the results within their state?
"The voters, the state / local governments, the courts, etc certified the election results..."
As with other things, Trump Supporters only seem support local responsibility and authority when it makes them happy. Otherwise they want to over rule the will of the people.
You seem to be under the delusion that the results in every state, "certified" as they were, could not have been altered under any of the many legal, semi-legal and extralegal means of changing those results to NOT reflect the true will of the voters. There are simply too many "loopholes" in the election procedure, and big enough to drive a truck (loaded with fraudulent ballots) through. If you place a bet at the horse track, you lose, and nobody even pretends to check that some of the horses may have been drugged, or worse yet drugging is permitted, do you trust the result?
If you place a bet at the horse track, you lose, and nobody even pretends to check that some of the horses may have been drugged, or worse yet drugging is permitted, do you trust the result?
We saw what happens when there is cheating at the race track. There were checks, the cheating was found, the winner had his victory taken away. But what happened to the wagers?
--Hiram
Jerry,
I trust local and state citizens and governments, you apparently do not.
Trump lost by 4 States... Not even close like the Bush / Gore situation.
I just wonder what will happen in 2024. Will Congress refuse to accept the electoral votes because there are too many "loopholes" in election laws?
--Hiram
Let's pray we keep having 3+ state margins...
And Presidents who respect the rule of law...
But what if the Supreme Court upholds Congress' refusal to accept the votes of the electoral college? What happens to the rule of law then?
--Hiram
Then I assume Congress loses...
Though I have enough real issues to ponder today.
Deny, deflect, deceive. You are trying to convince me that all of the OBVIOUS pathways by which an election could be "stolen" (sorry for the loaded word, but it's quick) not only were NOT used, but simply do not exist, and that despite the highly unlikely result, we must forego all skepticism. You're basically asking us to admit that what we KNOW is not true. Simply asserting "there was no fraud" as our hyper-partisan Secretary of State does, is not at all convincing.
There was nothing unlikely about a guy who polled badly losing badly. As for fraud, Jerry had the opportunity to describe an instance of fraud he witnessed and he didn't. That says a lot.
--Hiram
Hiram,
It seems like he has jumped back to MN.
Like Trump would have one our Liberal bastion.
hahahahahahaha
Odd. I thought I HAD. One precinct had an official tally of about 900 Biden votes. There were 300 Biden ballots counted. Another had 75 Biden-only ballots all in a row, a statistical impossibility. And again, it isn't a question of whether or not there was cheating, but the inability of leftists (for want of a better term) to show that the POSSIBILITY of cheating did not exist or was minimized. It's just simply never mentioned, replaced by a chattering "na-na-na-na-na" that "there was no fraud." Go ahead, prove that there was a minimal opportunity for fraud in 2020 MN election procedure.
Please share the district, data, etc.
One precinct had an official tally of about 900 Biden votes. There were 300 Biden ballots counted.
Which precinct?
Another had 75 Biden-only ballots all in a row, a statistical impossibility.
In many precincts, the votes are unanimous.
but the inability of leftists (for want of a better term) to show that the POSSIBILITY of cheating did not exist or was minimized.
No one is able to show the possibility of cheating doesn't exist, or ever has been able to show such a thing.
The idea is that elections are invalid because the possibility of cheating exists. Well, how else will we choose our officials?
--Hiram
Something else to bear in mind.
Lawful votes must be counted and must have an effect. The state cannot discard lawfully cast ballots simply because it finds it impossible to rule out the possibility of cheating.
--Hiram
Nobody can prove that cheating did not occur, unless they actually LOOK for it, to which far too many people prefer to turn a willfully blind eye . What CAN be proven, quite easily, is that the possibility of cheating exists. Suppose, for example, that a hyper-partisan Secretary of State waives the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots? Suppose a few County auditors decide that having citizen election judges from both parties observe the opening and counting of absentee ballots isn't necessary? Suppose that we set up totally unsupervised drop boxes for ballots, where anybody can drop as many ballots as they want? Did anybody actually look at absentee and mail-in ballots and wonder why there were no creases in them, from being folded? And how is it that a stack of ballots would have about 50-50 Biden/Trump, but the last 75 in the stack went all for Biden, a statistical impossibility, and Biden wins the precinct by 70 votes?
"Lawful votes must be counted...." Isn't that all we should want, but doesn't that involve the equal requirement of "UNLAWFUL votes must NOT be counted"?
Again... Trump got beat like a red headed step child...
MN Results
Trump 1,484,065 45.28%
Biden 1,717,077 52.40%
Ironically they pretty much match the job approval ratings. Which make sense to me.
"Lawful votes must be counted...." Isn't that all we should want, but doesn't that involve the equal requirement of "UNLAWFUL votes must NOT be counted"?
It's the risk we take. And one of the reasons we can be pretty comfortable in taking is that we can pretty much count on most unlawful votes were in fact cast in good faith in ways that don't unfairly change elections. I expect a large number of votes, for example, in any election are cast by people who have moved since they registered. I know I have explained to people a million times that every time they move they have to re register, something most people don't know. Has that ever bothered me? Not really. Its a complicated system and it is the nature of complicated system to go wrong sometimes.
--Hiram
OK, take your example. Someone who has recently moved and can prove it by having the proper credentials can same-day register, no questions asked. Their ballot gets counted. NOTHING prevents them, before or after, from going into their old precinct and voting again. I doubt it happens often, but the fact we do not have provisional ballots for same-day registration-- one of only 3 states without-- means it is possible.
Here is another. The SOS says we must accept a drivers license from any other state as proof of ID, and allow that person to register (same day). Yet 17 states give licenses to illegal aliens, so non-citizens CAN vote in Minnesota. And because of a lack of provisional ballots, those votes count even though some 35,000 of those voters could not be found after the election. Were these lawful votes? Should they have counted? That's TWO questions.
Someone who has recently moved and can prove it by having the proper credentials can same-day register, no questions asked. Their ballot gets counted. NOTHING prevents them, before or after, from going into their old precinct and voting again.
So are elections where that is possible are invalid? I have a high degree of confidence that I can construct senarios where votes are unlawfully cast. Does my ability to do that mean that elections shouldn't count?
I think what used to happen all the time is that absentee ballots were unlawfully cast. People just didn't have the right to cast them under the then existing election rules but they did anyway. So does that mean we should throw out the election of Eisenhower? Or is that just one of life's imperfections with which we learn to live?
Concerning the driver license issue, my understandin of voter ID is that what it does is establish that the person who is presenting himself to vote is who he says he is. It has nothing to do with qualifications to vote. After all, lots of people have ID's who aren't qualified to vote. I am sure many non citizens have perfectly legal driver licenses, but are not qualified to vote.
Being an alien does not imply that one is here illegally. Millions of aliens in this country are permanent residents. They are taxpayers, are persons within the meaning of the constitution, count in terms of apportionment of election districsts, serve in the military, and are subject to the military draft. For many aliens, service in the military is a useful path to citizenship.
--Hiram
Hiram, you are comparing apples to fruitcake. Having voter ID laws that establish one as a resident AND lawful voter suppresses UNLAWFUL votes, which is exactly what it should do. Current MN law allows Illegal aliens who "are who they say they are" (by having an outstate license) to vote and should not. I'm still reviewing MN election law to see if permanent resident aliens can get licenses, and if those licenses would allow them to vote (MN law used to require those licenses to carry a "not valid for voting" note.) Do you know?
You pose an interesting question. If you can pose a scenario where invalid ballots are cast and counted, does that mean an election should "not count"? Obviously it didn't in 2020, because there are at least a dozen "scenarios" where invalid ballots, in some quantity, could have been counted. It is my whole point. How can you have any confidence in the election results when the election laws and practice do not at least attempt to /prevent/ these "cheats" from occurring? Like quality, very hard to build election integrity in after the fact.
Imagine the extreme where blank ballots are set out in a pile, in public, and anybody and everybody could mark and put as many in the ballot box as they wanted. Would you put full faith in the results, as you are doing here?
"Do you know?"
Every state that gives drivers licenses to the undocumented has language on the ID itself.
"Imagine the extreme where blank ballots are set out in a pile, in public, and anybody and everybody could mark and put as many in the ballot box as they wanted. "
You have a vivid imagination, I'll give you that much.
Having voter ID laws that establish one as a resident AND lawful voter suppresses UNLAWFUL votes, which is exactly what it should do.
As I understand it, voter ID does exactly what it says it does, establish that the person is who he says he is. It has nothing to do with qualifications to vote. And I am pretty sure we don't want election judges making off the cuff judgments about who may or may not be qualified to vote.
I'm still reviewing MN election law to see if permanent resident aliens can get licenses, and if those licenses would allow them to vote (MN law used to require those licenses to carry a "not valid for voting" note.)
Yes, resident aliens can get driver licenses. They pay taxes, and get Social Security and pretty much can do everything else citizens can do except vote and serve on juries.
" How can you have any confidence in the election results when the election laws and practice do not at least attempt to /prevent/ these "cheats" from occurring? Like quality, very hard to build election integrity in after the fact."
Bear in mind that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by three million votes but I didn't dispute the validity of his win. That real world scenario seems a lot more outlandish than your hypothetical.
--Hiram
Sean, I haven't seen enough out-of-state licenses to know; I'll take your word for it because it seems reasonable. But strangely enough, I have not seen that notation on a MN license in a long time, and I cannot find the requirement in State law.
As for my "extreme case," isn't it really just an exaggeration of what we have now?
Hiram, you keep talking as if the election is won by popular vote, not the electoral college. Trump won that in 2016, and Biden won it in 2020 by some 300,000 votes in six states. Many of those vote counts are under suspicion. If they are ever proven valid, I'll accept the results. But there is a lot of 'splainin' to do before that.
This is humorous...
"If they are ever proven valid, I'll accept the results."
Like anyone cares what a conspiracy minded individual believes, when we have systems, officials, politicians, courts, etc who make the call.
I envision you watching a baseball game second guessing the umpire...
Maybe you tell him he needs to prove that the pitch was in the strike zone to your satisfaction. hahahahaha...
you keep talking as if the election is won by popular vote, not the electoral college
It's a loophole. And note that now it's Republicans, not me who are disputing the electoral college outcome they were so supportive of, four years ago.
Biden won some states and lost others. But he won the popular vote by over seven million votes, a pretty huge margin.
I have often talked about how support for a measure which is contingent on the fulfillment of impossible preconditions is in fact opposition to the measure. When I politician says I support "X" but only if and when snowballs freeze in Hell and the other party pays for the air conditioning, you know that they in fact oppose "X". It's impossible to proove there is no fraud in elections, particularly when fraud is so widely defined as to include any instance of error. If we require such an impossible precondition to be fulfilled in order for an election to be held valid, no election ever has or ever will be held valid.
--Hiram
Oh, yes, it is humorous that somebody steals a national election, and half the country believes it, while the other half simply makes their claims but refuses to make any effort to prove it cannot be true. If the free safety trips the receiver and the game-winning pass is ruled incomplete but the referee didn't see it (or wasn't looking), who won the game?
I'm not asking impossible preconditions. I'm asking to prove that everything was done to minimize possible "improper voting." We know for absolute fact that is not true.
Oh, yes, it is humorous that somebody steals a national election, and half the country believes it, while the other half simply makes their claims but refuses to make any effort to prove it cannot be true.
The proof that the election was honestly conducted is beyond overwhelming. It's in the election officials' reports. That burden has been met.
I can assure you not everything was done. There isn't much in life where everything is done.
--Hiram
"...and half the country believes it."
You can only have "faith" in something if it is not provable.
You can't "believe" in facts. Facts are facts.
So...thank you for showing us that it's really just a cult.
Moose
OK, what "facts" prove that Biden won the election with no "improper voting"? I have not seen anything except blind-faith assertions that such is the case. Yes, it is a fact that official pronouncements of the victory are being made, but those are simply belief statements, not factual evidence.
Oh, and I am not supposed to "believe" in facts?? Where do you get your ontological certainty?
Jerry,
You are part of the whacko conspiracy minded 32% of Americans thankfully.
These not surprisingly are the people who think Tucker Carlson is a reliable news source.
Thankfully a solid majority of Americans believe in our American systems and laws.
"While most Americans (62%) say Biden won the presidency fair and square, about one-third (32%) continue to believe his victory was only due to voter fraud – a number that has remained unchanged from polls taken immediately after the November election and after the inauguration. About 1 in 10 American adults (12%) say they will never accept Biden as president (similar to 10% in January). Among Republicans, nearly two-thirds (65%) maintain Biden’s win was due to voter fraud and 29% say they will never accept him as president."
You are name-calling. You deem it impossible that "whacko conspiracy" people have factual grounds for their opinion. You dismiss everything Tucker Carlson (whoever he is) has to say simply because you don't like it. I find it hard to take you seriously.
A solid majority of Americans WANT to believe that our elections are fair and that our leaders are competent and have our best interests at heart. They believe a lot of things for which they have no evidence, and for which they will ignore evidence to the contrary when given to them, if it ever is. Maybe that's why liberals dislike Trump and Tucker Carlson and others, and actively censor all manner of conservative viewpoints, simply because the truth cannot be allowed to be spoken. Deflect, deNy, and deCeive. DNC.
Oh, and where was your criticism of the sizable group who thought TRUMP stole the 2016 election, and never accepted him as President?
The facts are that we have a system for doing these things and solving questions that arise. Those systems have come to the same conclusion dozens or hundreds of times, that Joe Biden won the election and there are no irregularities that bring that into question.
So. I don't need to "believe" anything, because the system we all used to agree on has already dealt with it.
"Oh, and I am not supposed to "believe" in facts?? Where do you get your ontological certainty?"
Facts don't require belief.
Moose
"Oh, and where was your criticism of the sizable group who thought TRUMP stole the 2016 election, and never accepted him as President?"
What group is that?
Moose
I want to believe I can play center field for the Twins next year, but what does that tell us about what the opening day lineup will be?
The evidence of what the vote was in the 2020 election is overwhelming. All those reports filed precinct by precinct from all over the country.
--Hiram
It's really sickening what the Cult of Trump/Fox News has done to this country.
I have a good friend who was distraught back in 2016 when she couldn't understand her husband's support for Trump. The husband, also a friend, has since become very vocal about his belief in the wingnut conspiracy theories so prevalent in Trump/Fox cult. I feel so bad that my friend has had to experience her husband becoming someone she no longer recognizes, to the point that separation/divorce was the only sane option.
Moose
Moose--
Time for John's favorite send-off. "You are going to believe what you want to believe." My consolation is that at least I have some basis in fact for mine.
"All those reports filed precinct by precinct from all over the country." Yes, including those precincts with 120% turnout, where large numbers of voters were over 100 years of age, and included ballots from people that, after checking, seem not to exist. Then of course you have the mail-in and absentee ballots, which do not come through a "precinct" at all and have almost none of the same reasonable safeguards.
You are simply accepting the conclusion with no consideration of the reliability of the underlying data.
"Yes, including those precincts with 120% turnout"
Social media users have been sharing posts which claim that in Michigan voter turnout exceeded 120% in six precincts or townships, with one registering a turnout of more than 700%. County website election results for these precincts show that these voter turnout figures are incorrect and the person who originally made these claims later said some of the figures were “excessive”.
Reuters: Fact check: Six Michigan areas did not have voter turnouts of more than 100%
I also am curious which DEMs denied Trump's legitimacy?
"While there were some dissident voices that questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election, top Democrats acknowledged Trump’s win and referred to him as the president-elect less than a day after election results became clear. Those leaders included Clinton, Obama, Democratic leaders in Congress and the DNC."
I am certain that there are "whacko conspiracy minded" folks in Tribe Liberal.
Thankfully much fewer than 32% of them... And not their leaders...
Imagine the screams from the Right if Hillary and Obama had done and said the terrible things that Trump did. :-O
No problem. Voices from the right are routinely dismissed and disparaged. Just imagine that Joe Biden, to "create jobs fighting climate change" destroyed 40,000 jobs by cancelling a much-needed pipeline. Oh, you didn't hear about that?
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” ― Ronald Reagan
Actually it is voices from the fringe that are usually disparaged.
Be they coming from the Far Left or Far Right...
Especially when they shout out conspiracy theories with no data to back them up.
Voices from the right are routinely dismissed and disparaged.
One reason why putting forward Donald Trump for president was not such a great idea. When Republicans say their voices are routinely dismissed, they are not wrong.
--Hiram
"destroyed 40,000 jobs"
50 jobs
Moose
Post a Comment