Discussed in detail. I am slowly starting to understand that many conservative truly want to suppress the vote of the poor, young, etc by:
- making it harder for them to vote
- making it harder to get information to them
- reducing the hours or polling place in their districts
It was hard for me to acknowledge this, but when I have looked at the kind of law suits they have been filing, there is no doubt that they are trying to fight the US democratic process for their own agenda.
Which is pretty sad. Of course the DEMs seem obsessed with fighting even the simplest photo ID laws, so I am not impressed with them either.
Horrors! MVA is suppressing votes by demanding that MN election law be followed! I guess libel is OK so long as you libel half the population, rather than just a single person? Is obsession and madness a defense, because it seems you are trying very hard.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteIssues like below benefit legal voters in both parties, and with COVID rampant it benefits elderly voters more. Now following law is one thing, but trying to throw out legal votes and make it harder to vote on technicalities is another.
"In Minnesota, talk of issues and irregularities usually means a decision in the summer of 2020 by the Secretary of State, prompted by the courts, to end the requirement that voters who mailed in ballots had to have someone witness their ballot signature.
Lawsuits over Minnesota’s witness requirement, however, convinced the courts that the provision was unfair for voters locked-down during a pandemic, and the requirement was waived. “Now all of a sudden the courts are determining election law,” Daudt said.
Republicans who cite that litigation when talking about problems with the election, however, do not usually note that the witness requirement is not actually how Minnesota confirms that a registered voter is the person who cast a ballot. Rather, witnesses simply certify that the ballot was blank to start with; was cast in private; and sealed without anyone else seeing it.
To confirm a registered voter’s ballot was cast by that person, Minnesota has voters pick an identifying number — usually a driver’s license, social security or passport number — that must be included on their outer envelope along with their own signature.
For a mail-in ballot to be fraudulently cast, then, a person would have to steal a ballot, forge a signature — and know a voter’s identifying number. What’s more, that ballot would be nullified if the person whose ballot was stolen requested a new one. In challenges to the Minnesota results, no evidence has ever been presented of vote theft related to witness signatures. "
Then we have this silly Hail Mary attempt to thwart the will of MN Votes.
ReplyDeleteVoter ID laws are just one more way to suppress the vote as not everyone has a valid ID.
ReplyDeleteThat is the silliest argument... Everyone who buys beer, cigarettes, etc has a photo ID...
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to protect the vote of the teetotalers out there?
I would agree to voter ID if people without an ID are still allowed to vote.
ReplyDeleteNew insights on US voters who don’t have photo ID
That is the silliest argument... Everyone who buys beer, cigarettes, etc has a photo ID
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, I find I am hardly ever asked for my ID.
You may be asked for ID when you buy beer and cigarettes but what about the etc? I suggest that when qualification isn't the issue, that is age requirements for beer and cigarette, you are rarely ever asked for an ID. I routinely present my credit card for purchases, bth in ral and virtual stores. The credit card does not ID me. My photo isn't on the back. It has no information about me on it. I don't even sign my credit card. Yet my card is always accepted without any sort of ID verifying that I am the person on the card.
Why is that?
It's because, quite literally, the stores do not want barriers tetween themselves and your money. They want to find reasons to ease the transaction. They do not want to surppress sales. To do that, they are willing to take the risk that the card might not be legally used. And they are comfortable in doing that because there are a variety of securicy measures behind the scenes to reduce if not entirely eliminate the risk to the retailer.
The same principle applies to voter ID. One party wants to suppress voting in ways that disguise their true intention. Voter ID serves that purpose admirably.
==Hiram
I find it so surprising Republicans still believe they can be taken seriously on issues of election integrity and voter security. We just came off an election where the leader of their party, still widely admired by the party faithful, was caught on tape asking eleection officials in Georgia to "recalculate" the vote. To find, somewhere, the 13,000 votes he needed to win the election in Georgia. Could anything be clearer than the fact that Republicans don't care about voter integrity, that where elections are concerned, they only care about winning them, and are willing to employ any means necessary to do it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Republican perspective, way too many people for a way to vote in 2020. No Republican controlled state is going to allow this to happen again. There is no doubt in my mind that where Republicans control state government we will see waves of 'voter security" measures designed to supporess voting, all of which will be upheld by Republican controlled courts. More people voted in the last presidential elections than ever before in our history and the result was that the Democrat won by 7 million votes. Republicans will do everything in their power to prevent that from ever happening again.
--Hiram
I think SD's Voter ID law seemed rational
ReplyDeleteHiram,
For pretty much everything important in life, one shows their valid photo ID. I think voting is am important thing that justifies that simple normal check.
I never show my ID for anything. except to get through airport security.
ReplyDeleteYou must live a pretty quiet and uneventful life.
ReplyDeleteI just bought some wine for a Bday party and they scanned my license.
If I rent ski equipment that check my ID.
If I try to make a transaction with a bank teller they check my ID.
Most transactions at the Hennepin county service center require one.
etc
I just bought some wine for a Bday party and they scanned my license.
ReplyDeleteWere they checking your identity? Or your age? Is voter ID in fact a place where qualifications to vote are reviewed and challenged?
If I rent ski equipment that check my ID.
But not when you buy them?
If I try to make a transaction with a bank teller they check my ID.
Not my experience, surely. I deal almost exclusively with credit cards. Most of those transactions don't even involve presentation of the credit card itself, let alone an ID. On rare occasions I actually go to a physical banking facility. There i use an ATM card, which doesn't identify me. When I deal with a teller, I don't ever recall being asked to present an ID. M.
No, Republicans want to suppress votes. They have no problem at all in discarding legally cast votes. I heard a Republican US Senator on TV yesterday talking about how he was perfectly fine with discarding lawfully cast ballots because of things government had done which he did not like. Think of that. This guy would have given the government power to discard ballots, not because the voters had done something wrong, but because the government he works for and from whom he draws a paycheck, messed up.
--Hiram
I should also note that the Republican senator who was so concerned about voter integrity, did not condemn the leader of his party when that leader pressured election officials in Georgia to "recalculate" the ballot count.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
If I rent ski equipment that check my ID.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that if you were renting a voting booth instead of using it to vote, that might very well asked for an ID.
--Hiram
Thank you for confirming that DEMs are against even the most basic photo ID laws.
ReplyDeleteLet us make this clear: Republicans (and honest Democrats-- a questionable category) want to suppress ILLEGAL votes. Repeating otherwise ad nauseum does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteLaurie, a survey in deepest Harlem asked people if they had an ID, or knew where they could get one (for free, in every voter ID law). 98% said yes. There you are, proof that black minority votes were "suppressed" by voter ID.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteWhen Conservatives start proving their claims of voter fraud, I will start worrying about that.
As long as they continue to try to make it harder for citizens vote or to learn about voting through frivolous law suits, one has to assume they are just working to block the poor from voting.
By the way, 2% of 8,500,000 is 170,000 voters impacted in NY... Far more than any credible fraud concern I have ever seen proven....
Some evidence regarding the GOP strategy
ReplyDeleteAt least this lady was being honest.
"Some Republican officials have been blunt about their motivations: They don’t believe they can win unless the rules change. “They don’t have to change all of them, but they’ve got to change the major parts of them so that we at least have a shot at winning,” Alice O’Lenick, a Republican on the Gwinnett County, Ga., board of elections in suburban Atlanta, told the Gwinnett Daily Post last week. She has since resisted calls to resign."
So, Republicans are evil for wanting to win honest elections? But Democrats who win dishonest elections are what? Deny, Deflect, deny again. How many comments do you generate with this trick? Are you approaching the "manufactured votes" level of stealing a conversation?
ReplyDeleteLet us make this clear: Republicans (and honest Democrats-- a questionable category) want to suppress ILLEGAL votes. Repeating otherwise ad nauseum does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteBear in mind, having a valid voter ID in no way proves that the person holding it is a legal voter. Identification does nothing more than identify a person, and everyone, regardless of voting status, has an identity.
Obviusly, knowing where to get an ID doesn't mean that the ID itself is even legal. It certainly has nothing to do with voting status.
Republicans have no problem in being led by a guy who was perfectly willing to commit voter fraud on a massive scale. A man who was caught on tape trying to do that very thing. This guy remains uncondemned by other party leaders and unrepudiated by his Republican supporters. Why should we ever take them seriously on issues of voter fraud ever again?
--Hiram
"Republicans have no problem in being led by a guy who was perfectly willing to commit voter fraud on a massive scale."
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that the only major race tossed out because of voter fraud recently -- the 9th congressional district in North Carolina -- was because of voter fraud perpetrated by Republicans.
Wisconsin and Georgia have two of the strongest voter ID laws in the nation, yet they were 2 of the 6 states to be challenged by Republicans in 2020. Three of the other four (AZ, MI, NV) have some form of Voter ID.
So what problem are we solving here? Not anything truly related to electoral validity -- but rather the "problem" of too many poor, black, brown, and/or young people voting.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteThose were comments by GOP operatives, not me...
Why is it hard for you to accept that many GOPers want to win no matter what?
Even if it means making it harder for or more time consuming for certain DEM voters?
Where, exactly, do you see suppression of minority votes in the statement you quoted? You are insisting on seeing a boogey man of your own imagining. The only thing I see here is you insisting that poor people and minorities should always vote Democrat (clearly racist), but are too stupid to figure out how to do it (morally bankrupt).
ReplyDeleteLet me rephrase. Unless the election laws are actually followed, so that the possibilities for "improper voting" (and counting) are clearly reduced, there is no such claim as a free and fair election, or of "election integrity." THEN, if you can find "voter suppression" in any real sense, the law can be corrected. No point in correcting a law that isn't being followed.
Jerry,
ReplyDeletePlease rationalize MVA's actions anyway you wish. Thankfully they are not very successful in their efforts to make voting harder.
Where, exactly, do you see suppression of minority votes in the statement you quoted?
ReplyDeleteWe have seen suppression of voting in every election excepte for the last one. In 2020, we made voting easier and 20 million more Americans voted. The results were brutal for Republicans. The margin by which they lose presidential elections more than doubled. They lost five seats in the senate along with control. The leader of the Republican was reduced to begging election officials to "recalculate" the totals while finding 13 million ballots that simply did not exist. Something, Republicans clearly feel, needs to be done. Reduction of voter participation in elections will certainly be the highest priority for Republican controlled states in the next two years. Fantasies about how Americans vote in their millions under false identities will surely play a role but that will hardly be the only tactic they employ.
--Hiram
A rough scientific analysis shows that there were over a half-million illegal votes in just 6 states, vastly more than Biden's margin of victory. It is an interesting twist of rhetoric, to claim that greatly expanding illegal voting is the proper counter to "voter suppression."
ReplyDeleteAs always... Source please.
ReplyDeleteScience isn't the sort of thing that can prove a vote was illegally cast.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I think by "science", Jerry is parroting Trumps lies.
ReplyDeleteNot true. Science is finding out which of the several means of improper voting were employed, and in what measure, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if I just used your logic, I could call all of you liars because you say the election was NOT stolen. I will ask again, how do you justify votes counted in violation of MN election law?
Not true. Science is finding out which of the several means of improper voting were employed, and in what measure, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ReplyDeleteHow can scienece tell you if an illegal vote was illegally cast? Those aren't science issues.
I will ask again, how do you justify votes counted in violation of MN election law?
How was election law violated?
--Hiram
People who speak of voting that occurred illegally tend to be vague about what they mean. "Illegally" can mean a lot of things, and people who use the term generally try to refer to most of them. What I think bugs Republicans are measures that in the last election made voting easier. The illegality they are most concerned with are things secretaries of state did that were not authorized by statutory law. Fo future elections, Republican controlled state governments are going to make voting a lot harder. Republicans know as Democrats know that the easier we make it to vote, the more Democrats benefit. That was vividly proven by the results of the presidential election, and the results in Georgia.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Another thing people mean when they say science disproves the election results is that they are capable of mining the data in ways that prove the outcome is unlikely. Well most outcomes in life are unlikely, and they can be made to appear more so, when data is selected for analysis to prove that. The results of the 2016 election were remarkably unlikely.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, the 2020 was very different from any election ever held before. That's because in the last four years, our politics changed. Instead of becoming a boring exercise in government, it became a source of entertainment. Trump may have been a bad president, but he was an effective entertainer. His approval numbers may have been bad, but his ratings were excellent. The result was the highest voter turnout for a presidential election in history. The problem for Trump was that he did a better job turning out the other side's voters than he was for his own. Because that turnout was unprecedented, the models that those who claim "science proved the election was fixed" were not viable, because they were based on elections that were not comparable.
--Hiram
"I will ask again, how do you justify votes counted in violation of MN election law?
ReplyDeleteHow was election law violated?"
I think Jerry and MVA believe the law was violated, therefore it was was violated. Even though the courts approved the changes. This seems usual for that group
I could make a case for election law violation. I know how to stuff denim overalls with strww and stick them in a field. But as is often the case with specifics, people avoid mentioning when they are damaging. The specific here is that way too many people voted for Republican liking in the last election. Less guarded politicians often spill the beans on this particular issue. Trump has commented that under new election rules, Republicans will never win elections. It is a bit more complicated than that, but where presidential elections are concerned, he isn't wrong. Overall the trend in the last decades has been to make voting easier, and it not entirely conincedental that Republicans have won the popular vote for president only once since 1988.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I would argue that even if the election rules were improper, the fact is people relied on them and had a right to rely on them when exercising their constitutional right to vote. Ifthe rules were improper, those issues should have been addressed before people relied on them. Because they didn't, their claims are "estopped", and untimely.
--Hiram
Sounds about correct...
ReplyDeleteOften children complain about the rules when they lose. :-)
Often children complain about the rules when they lose. :-)
ReplyDeleteOften politicians argue about the rules when they want to avoid resonsbility for decideing substandtive and difficult issues. Or as with election ID they try to hide substantive issues behind a rules argument. If we have learned nothing else from Donald Trump, I hope we learn that rules mean nothing when in conflict with power exercised without good faith.
--Hiram
I would prefer to have learned that "cheaters never prosper," but it appears I will be disappointed. Instead Biden is not only prospering (he gets to keep all of Hunter's many kickbacks) but gets to make paupers of all the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteIt is funny how backward your last comment is... :-)
The majority of Americans are very happy that the guy who tried to cheat got tossed out on his ear. :-)
There is simply no evidence or reason to think Biden cheated. Certainly Biden wasn't the one caught on tape asking election officials to find votes he needed to carry a state or to otherwise "recalculate" the totals.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand the ease with which Trump's lies on election fraud are swallowed. For one thing, he telegraphed them in advance. He made it clear before any vote was cast, and therefore before any fraud was committed, that if he lost he would claim the election was rigged. And the fact is, Trump was incredibly unpopular throughout his term of office, with record high disapproval numbers. Pre election polls unanimously showed Biden leading. Biden won by 7 million votes, a huge to anyone familiar with how elections are counted. Republican election officials who would have dearly loved to have found fraud in Biden's favor, found no such fraud. Yet people bought into the fraud claim, relying on the word of a notorious con man and liar. Not so long ago, I would not have believed any of that to be possible.
--Hiram
"There is simply no evidence or reason to think Biden cheated." Biden did not cheat. He had a lot of help from "the best voter fraud organization in history." Biden telegraphed in advance the election would be stolen, and Democrat operatives across the country made it happen. And let's quick talking about election fraud, because much of the cheating was semi-legal, but still cheating. It's not even proper to say Biden won by 7 million votes. He won because of somewhere around 100,000 votes across 4 states, swinging the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteHiram,
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It is disturbing how they all swallowed the bait Trump hung in front of them. However they have been swallowing his lies for years, so I am not sure why it keeps surprising me?
We had a very unpopular President who lost... Why the surprise? I mean he is the first President since 1938 to never break 50% approval. And that is because that is when gallup started measuring it.
Jerry,
Remember that saying it does make it so... Our country runs on law, order, proof, etc. And you and the other conspiracy theorist have nothing near 100,000 questionable votes... That is why Biden is President and Trump is preparing for an impeachment trial.
Perhaps you would like to explain why a bevy of high-priced East Coast attorneys descended on the courts in many local election challenges and got those challenges dismissed NOT for lack of evidence, but on technicalities like "standing" and "laches"? Actually, I and the other "conspiracy theorists" (look at your dismissive language!) have proof of about 7 million "improper votes."
ReplyDeleteThere should be no doubt in anybody's mind-- or at least OPEN mind-- that this election was improper; nobody can prove that Joe Biden won because the evidence of the theft has either been skillfully hidden or viciously suppressed. And Trump is preparing for an impeachment trial WHY? Because of raw, vicious politics and nothing more. Check your popularity polls. Last I saw, Trump was STILL more popular than Biden. And "miss me yet" hasn't even got rolling yet.
We are still waiting to see this "proof" posted for the public to analyze... :-)
ReplyDeleteTrump is standing trial because he spread lies against the USA and incited people to fight at the capitol.
Biden is already more popular than Trump ever was. 54.3% approval and 34.7% disapproval.
And maybe Trump's approval will grow again someday. But for now it is pretty low of 41% approval and 56% disapproval.
Pretty hard to find that which you do not seek, or choose not to believe when you stumble over it. I challenge you to offer proof that there were no irregularities in the election so that Biden won "fair and square." You cannot.
ReplyDeleteAnd unless you can prove that, the charge of "Trump lies inciting riot" have no basis in fact.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteIt is not the law abiding citizen's job to prove that no crime occurred. The onus is on you and yours to prove that a crime occurred, if you believe it is so.
Did Trump Incite Violence?
Personally it seems sedition is the more accurate word.
"Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.
I mean he lied about the election result and told people to fight the government so he could stay in power. It does not get more serious than that.
" he lied about the election result..."
ReplyDeleteReally? Can you prove that? Of course you cannot. And yet you state that with absolute certainty? You are not even willing to admit that "impeachment" is a method for removing a [President] from office, a point which is now entirely moot. It once was that words meant things.
I wish it was being tried in front of a judge... That would be interesting.
ReplyDeleteI wish this was happening to Obama... Then you would have been screaming that he should be thrown in jail...
I mean a President who not only interferes in state election processes, tries to make state officials lie about their count, and then tells followers to attack the capitol... Really... That is in somehow acceptable and not needing to be punished?