Why GOP fights investigation of Jan 6th insurrection attempt.
It was amusing and disturbing how McCarthy tried to seat people on the committee who voted not certify Biden's Presidency. He definitely was trying to sabotage the proceedings.
Hopefully more great citizens like Liz Cheney will stand up for our democracy instead of playing games with it.
125 comments:
We are much more comfortable in dealing with credibility than we are with truth. Credibility is malleable. We control it. We can choose what we believe. Wealthy people can hire ad agencies to add or subtract to credibility. Credibility has the virtue of tractibility. That's why when someone says something we don't like, our first response isn't to deal with what the person but to attack the person who says it. We say the person is biassed, or a hyppocrite, or stupid or a victim of "X" derangement system.
Truth, we are told, sets us free. That's exactly why so many people want to direct our attention to credibility instead.
--Hiram
Credibility: "the quality or power of inspiring belief"
That is an interesting concept. For me people need to earn and maintain credibility and my respect by being truthful, transparent, fact based, logical, etc.
Strangely as a fiscal Conservative, I seem to be in the minority. :-(
Many of my peers seem to be willing to give credibility to pretty much anyone who says what they want to hear. :-(
Trump says it is the biggest tax cut, the biggest crowd, other...
And folks believe him even though it is obviously incorrect...
Humans confuse me... :-)
What is wrong with our discourse is that people put much more effort in earning, maintaining, and even inspiring belief than they do saying what is true. At times, it's as if truth as disappeared altogether and is replaced by credibility.
One of the things that scares me most is that credibility, unlike truth, is for sale. That means it can be owned by the people who have the means to buy and sell it.
--Hiram
This seems to fit with We Can Not Handle the Truth
"But Toth is not shy about the convenience at play. Moravec spoke with him and he explained his thinking.
[W]hile Toth said he would support a statewide effort, he also argued the undertaking would be too expensive and time-consuming. Asked if he would consider including some smaller counties, Toth replied, “What’s the point? I mean, all the small counties are red.”
And that, right there, is the crux of the issue."
Hiram,
I am not sure if credibility is for sale?
I mean just look at all the people who are funding the liars that they deem to be credible?
I think of it as some kind of cult mentality. Maybe these folks are missing something in their personal lives that they need fulfilled?
Even it is by lying people, news organizations, politicians, etc.
An interesting discussion regarding conspiracy theories and those that believe them.
And another
Oops try the again..
And another
Or Why People Fall for Fake News
Personally I think it has a lot more to do with Tribalism, Fear, Power.
Just like animals running in a herd.
I am not sure if credibility is for sale?
Sure. People who buy advertising are buying credibility. How many political tv ads do you see during election season that aren't paid for by somebody? How amny are broadcast because they are truthful?
--Hiram
Maybe... However I think they are buying access to scare / anger people.
If you scream at the top of your lungs that the other "tribe" is out to take your influence, money, etc... Some tribe members will be be brain washable.
I mean Jerry thinks that it is okay that people stormed our capitol, tried to stop the legal function of our government, officers died, hundreds were injured, etc.
Even after every State and Court blessed the legality of the election...
It seems to me that many people have developed a very low bar for credibility. That being, they are saying what I want to hear or fear hearing. They must be credible.
You seem to believe you have credibility when you claim not only that the election was not stolen, but that it was basically impossible for it to be stolen. You don't have a leg to stand on, there, because you cannot prove that the many, many "loopholes" in the election laws, particularly in MN, were not used. And some people (Democrats) insist that we not go look for PROOF that the election WAS fair and square. That seems odd to me. Just prove the loopholes are all closed and we'll be forced to believe it. Right now you have zero credibility, because you are just saying the same "lie" over and over.
Jerry,
The local polling officials, the county officials, the state officials and the courts are okay with the results.
There is no reason to try to prove anything to the conspiracy believers like yourself.
Besides it is almost impossible. That is the insidious nature of conspiracy theories and cult membership. Folks like yourself do not think, you believe... Therefore you are immune to logic and data.
Usually one would need to present evidence that a crime occurred... And yet somehow in your twisted logic you believe it is enough to say that there was a possibility of a crime occurring.
Which is a bit like saying a crime occurred because I left my garage door unlocked last night.
Concerning the rules. They were the same for everyone, and everyone benefitted from them. If Democrats found it easier to vote and did so, so did Republicans. Donald Trump, possibly the most unpopular president in history, also received more votes than any Republican presidential candidate in history. He received far more votes, despite the pandemic, than he did in 2016. While no candidate has the right to win, every candidate on the ballot has the right to be voted for, and on that score, Republicans have no complaint. They did surprisingly well in 2016, far better than expectations, surely.
Get a reasonable hearing for one'e views isn't the same thing as making unfounded allegations until time runs out. It isn't the same as demanding hearing after hearing, count after count, until you get one that might ever so slightly, favor one's cause. It isn't the same as undermining the credibility of legitimate processes. A hundred and fifty million ballots were cast in thousands of locations around the country, monitored by election judges of both parties. Did even one come forward with a credible allegation of seeing someone stuff a ballot box? Of an imposter voting? Of anything we commonly recognize as election fraud at all?
--Hiram
There is an old pernicious idea in all Republics including ours that not everyone should vote. Sometimes, this took visible form. Through most of American history, women were not allowed to vote. Despite being counted for the purposes of apportioning the Cosngress, slaves were denied their inalienable right to vote. As this idea of limiting the franchise became less popular, less politically correct, means for limiting the vote went underground, and found ways to proceed by indirection. Ambiguities were manufactured making it easier to defend what was becoming indefensible when understood clearly. Poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements were all used to do what no longer could be publicly done which is find ways to reduce voting by people we don't like.
--Hiram
However the GOPers like Jerry seem to believe that their tribe members are above lying and cheating. Which proves how sanctimonious and hypocritical they are since the last big proven voter fraud was by GOP Operative(s).
Just Jerry's "it could have happened, so it must have happened". :-)
That is my biggest disappointment as a pro-democracy law & order fiscal conservative. How did the party I believed become anti-democracy?
"monitored by election judges of both parties" -- Hiram
Except that is manifestly untrue. The law requires it. The law was not followed.
And you both keep insisting that the law could not POSSIBLY be violated to favor one party or another, yet we know for FACT that those "unbalanced" judges and observers heavily or even exclusively leaned DFL. It could have happened and DID happen, along with a number of other possibilities that supposedly could not happen. MN election law, if followed, is some of the weakest in the nation, and it isn't being followed.
Speaking of "immune to logic and data," why is your sole argument that you have "faith" in the process?
This is how conspiracy theories work?
"FACT that those "unbalanced" judges and observers heavily or even exclusively leaned DFL."
No data, no proof, just opinions...
Implying that others are less honest than you or your tribe...
No mention that GOP districts are biased in an equal and opposite way.
How did you become such a sanctimonious hypocrite?
Or are you willing to start auditing all districts (including white ones), not just those you disagree with (minority ones)?
And you both keep insisting that the law could not POSSIBLY be violated to favor one party or another, yet we know for FACT that those "unbalanced" judges and observers heavily or even exclusively leaned DFL
I am not sure what the claim is here. Do Republicans not provide election judges? Of course, election law could be violated. The question is whether it is. Have any election judges in Minnesota come forward and said that they were interfered with?
--Hiram
Maybe there are so few Republicans in the Urban areas that they had no reps volunteer?
Shortage of party election judges doesn't seem to be a widely reported problem. In post election analysis, I haven't heard Minnesota Republican party officials raise the issue. In thinking about fraud, I think of it in Holmesian terms. Why are so few dogs barking?
It's like voter ID. If impostor voting were a serious problem, I think there would be reports of people complaining that they couldn't vote because when they got to their polling place, someone had already voted in their name. But I don't recall hearing about any such complaints.
What I also find curious, is that no one seems to be addressing elections in a positive way. No one is asking election judges, the folks on the front line, what problems they are dealing with. Nobody asks them if they saw anything any toward, and no one asks them how we can make elections better. It's as if no one is interested in or has a problem with how elections are actually conducted. For me personally, I have no complaints at all. Except for 2020, I vote in person on election day, and the process is incredibly smooth. I walk in, no lines, I vote, get my sticker, and then go out for an Egg McMuffin. Has anyone else's experience been substantially different. Last year I voted in the primary early at City Hall, and in the general, cast my ballot by mail. Again, no problem.
--Hiram
"No data, no proof, just opinions..."
Deny, deflect, deceive and then deny some more. FACT: 2016 Election judges submitted to the Secretary of State (according to law): DFL 20,000, GOP 3000. See the "balance"?
Hiram, you are out of the loop. GOP election judges have been methodically excluded from the absentee ballot boards, and from observing any counting of ballots. Yet we know for fact (having participated in post-election audits) that almost no ballot security was in place at the centers, and that many ballots were counted multiple times, and that strings of identical ballots were so lengthy (75 in a row, in one case) to be statistically impossible. We know for fact that Secretary Simon changed election law, without legislative approval, to remove the signature match requirement for absentee ballots. Apparently there is no accounting for the number of ballots sent out vs. the number that came in (in Maricopa, AZ, there were 75,000 more came in than went out). Ballot harvesting is illegal in MN but drop boxes were left unattended and unwatched. Shall I go on? The possibilities, and indeed the proof, are near endless and should be ample reason for skepticism.
It is odd... We have a hard enough time getting people to vote...
And folks like Jerry think there are people willing to commit a felony to vote?
I wonder what kind of people he associates with. :-)
A hard time getting people to vote? When turnout in some precincts was well over 100%?? When people over the age of 100 voted? You keep thinking that people are willing to risk a felony conviction for voter fraud, but that just isn't true. First of all, most of the methods of cheating the vote will never ever be found, especially since no one is allowed to observe it, let alone "forensic audit" it. And it isn't committed by individual voters voting, it's committed in the counting rooms, or in large batches of phony ballots with NO real voter behind them. Hard to prosecute people that don't exist. But continue to deny the truth if it makes you feel better.
What district(s)?
"some precincts was well over 100%"
This should be easy to prove or disprove...
GOP election judges have been methodically excluded from the absentee ballot boards, and from observing any counting of ballots.
I just haven't heard that reported. I would make an issue of it before the election next time.
The suspicion I have is that the objection was more with the rules. TThe problem there was that the rules are the same for everyone. The fact is, the rule changes made it easier to vote but I don't see how that could be unfair. Turnout was higher for both Demorats and Republicans both Democratic and Republicans voters benefitted from the rule changes. It is always possible to find areas of disagreement with how elections are conducted, but if such disagreements are allowed to delay the certification of elections, elections would never be certified.
I have met a lot of political people but I have never met anyone who thought it was worth committing a felony to vote. I am pretty political, but in terms of voting, if I voted two or three times instead of just once, it would be unlikely that the outcome of the election would change. I would be risking a felony charge however. How could it possibly be worth it. There are other, perfectly legal ways, to have much larger impact on elections than voting illegally.
--Hiram
Well this says in Mpls 93.4% was the best turnout.
And it was only ~45% in the challenged neighborhoods.
Look at the official Secretary of State report. You can find it, but you can't handle the truth. Maybe you can explain it away but I expect you will simply deny it, like you do the vast ocean of evidence that MN election law has many avenues for fraud, even if followed. Sorry. Here, let me deny THAT for you, rather than having to spell out what you could find if you looked.
Hiram, you aren't paying attention. There have been successful lawsuits against some counties for NOT having partisan citizen judges, and more are in the works. That part of the law is routinely ignored, even flouted.
Hiram, how do you file a felony complaint against people who voted, but do not exist?
Actually I looked for anything supporting your position and found nadda...
As noted before... My unlocked garage door is not proof of a crime.
Is there a link to that secretary of state report.
That there are many avenues of fraud but that doesn't mean fraud has occurred. There are many ways to rob a bank, but that doesn't mean a bank is getting robbed.
Obviously, each polling place should have election judges of both parties. It is possible that there are places in Minnesota where the parties can't find judges. But that can't mean the votes aren't counted. Voters have the right to have their votes counted when they follow the rules even when someone else doesn't.
--Hiram
This is all I found...
From the SOS site, you can pull down an Excel file with turnout by precinct for the entire state. I did so, and can confirm that said file shows no evidence of widespread shenanigans. In fact, the only two precincts that show mildly odd numbers are precincts that voted 3-1 in favor of Trump.
I would think cheating would be pretty obvious. Election judges, presumably keep or at least have access to the number of ballots they issued. If more votes are counted than ballots issues, I would say there is a problem. Does that happen?
--Hiram
" My unlocked garage door is not proof of a crime." Silly rabbit. If you leave your garage door open, you not only make crime a possibility but are actively inviting it to take place. Close it! Just as we should close all the gaping "open doors" in our election laws. The point is confidence in the election, as you would have by closing your garage door. Seeing it open gives your neighbors no confidence in your ability to keep crime out of the neighborhood. It is irresponsible at best.
Sean, I am surprised. I found a quite a number of suspicious things, but then, I added a few columns and computations you may not have. But thanks for at least looking at the real data, rather than simply blanket denying that anything "odd" took place.
Hiram, cheating is obvious, but only after the fact. Several of us personally witnessed recounts in which there were far more votes tallied than the paper ballots supported. And we are not allowed to know the "sent out/returned" numbers because that information is never revealed, if it is even tracked.
Hiram, I stand corrected. Statewide numbers for sent out/returned absentee ballots are available at the SOS site FOR THE WHOLE STATE, and it doesn't appear unusual as I thought it would. Apparently ballot boards did their job despite SOS Simon eliminating the signature match requirement, contrary to law. What I did NOT find was similar data for mail-out/mail-in ballots. And that doesn't preclude a few counties "shenanigans" being hidden in the overall. A few points difference in Hennepin is more significant than the same percentage in Lac Qui Parle.
What I find amazing is Jerry's desire to over regulate in this space.
He provides no proof of a crime and yet he wants more regulations and locks that will make it harder for citizens to vote.
Just like locking the backdoor of my garage would cause me to need to go find a key whenever I wanted to come in that way.
It is a true shame that the GOP has become regulation zealots in this area, while avoiding them is places that could save lives...
Sean, Do you have a web page where I can access that excel file?
I have suspected for a while now, that Trump and Republicans have benefitted from the easier elections rules which they claim rigged the election. Lots of Republicans found it easier to vote too, and I am sure that helped them in certain areas. I wonder if Trump would have lots by more votes, had rule changes not helped his voters.
--Hiram
SOS Precinct Results Spreadsheet
Sean, Thanks.
Hiram, The problem is that for some reason Jerry and the like see themselves as more honorable and rule abiding?
Their view seems to be that minorities, urbanites and liberals are criminals that can not be trusted. That is why they move to the suburbs and rural areas...
And why they freak when minorities start moving in next to them or attending their schools. :-)
What makes this most amusing that Jerry wants to give them easy vouchers while wanting to make it harder for them to vote. :-O I guess he trusts them only so far...
"He provides no proof of a crime" Hah! I have provided proof, and much more exists, but you simply deny it, or deny that it even exists. You can't handle that truth. Was it enough to change the election? Maybe not, but is that an excuse to allow rampant cheating, or the possibility thereof? It doesn't make any sense to me, that if none of these possible cheats was used, why should we object to closing them off, by law? It is not "over-regulation," for example, to say that all absentee ballots should have a "chain of custody" just as ballots from the precinct do. Nor that partisan election judges should serve on absentee ballot boards and observe the counting. It's already law, generally speaking, but not being followed. You are defending a broken system, both in the schools and in the elections.
But you are right about one thing. I want to make it more difficult for dead people, non-existent people and those who are not who they say they are to vote. You, apparently, want all of these "people," that do not really exist, to vote, early and often.
Maybe we should pass ever more regulations and laws to prevent the unlikely and unproven from happening?
You are starting to sound like a Democrat... :-)
And you are already sounding like a Democrat-- "There is no voter fraud in Minnesota" with absolutely no evidence for that statement, while denying the obvious evidence to the contrary. Of course, it is part word games. "Voter fraud" is a very definite criminal offense, requiring proof of intent (and an actual perpetrator). But election CHEATING can be widespread with no detectable perpetrator.
How about this: Rather than passing more laws, could we start by enforcing the laws already on the books?
Actually, I have never said there is NO Voter fraud in MN.
I have said that it is minimal and done by both sides.
And the amount is SO LOW as to make it not worth making it harder for citizens to vote.
I am sure MVA is wasting our tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits to block easy voter access. Have they had any significant wins lately?
Yes, MVA has won recently, and several times before. In most cases, forcing the SOS or County to follow the law as written. If that "makes it harder to vote," blame the law, not Republicans who want the law followed.
And if it is minimal and done by both sides, why is the "party balance" so lop-sidedly Democrat? Including the Secretary of State, Attorney General, County boards and courts?
According to their site it looks like they are not accomplishing much.
Maybe because Minnesotan residents like and trust Democrats more?
I mean they did not fall for that charlatan named Donald Trump. :-O
"A majority of likely U.S. voters — 55 percent — support forensic audits to make sure that there was no voter fraud while only 29 percent oppose audits, according to a Rasmussen poll. That poll even had 10% of the Democrats who were polled supporting audits. And then there was the Rasmussen poll on election integrity which reported last week that '37% of Democrats – 61% of all Americans – support investigating and fixing election integrity issues.'"
Care to join the majority?
I think that is where we started this post.
The GOPers only seem interested in auditing the DEM leaning districts.
And then they are hiring unqualified "auditors" with a pre-announced bias.
Would you support DEMs hiring an anti-GOP auditing company with no experience to check only the GOP leaning districts?
AZ Audit Update
What percentag of voters favor forensic audits intended to undermine credibility of elections?
--Hiram
Hiram, Excellent point...
And if it is minimal and done by both sides, why is the "party balance" so lop-sidedly Democrat? Including the Secretary of State, Attorney General, County boards and courts?
That's been the trend of politics for a while now.
In olden times, Republicans often did pretty well in suburbs and were at least a presence in cities. But for decades now, Republicans have effectively campaigned against cities, the result being that they have virtually disappeared from urban America. This has also affected them negatively in suburbs. Electorally, the problem is that cities and suburbs are where people live, and the majorities Democrats pile up there, can't be negated by gerrymandering in statewide elections. Republicans pit rural areas against the cities, and the result has been greater majorities out state, so where gerrymandering is possible they do better.
As states become more urban dominated Democrats will do better, if current trends stand, and that's the long term problem for Republicans. After the 2008 and 2012 elections, a lot of Republican thinkers asked how they could run better in cities, but the rise of Trump has put a stop to that. In the near term, Republicans are betting on keeping the vote down, and on the Republican Supreme Court to maintain their political power, but both are kind of fragile.
--Hiram
Hiram--
"A majority of likely U.S. voters — 55 percent — support forensic audits to make sure that there was no voter fraud while only 29 percent oppose audits, according to a Rasmussen poll."
I should also note Trump got a higher percentage of the black and Hispanic vote. And "gerrymandering" in MN has perpetually been the province of Democrats. I keep hoping that this time around, they will let computers do it, in a totally objective way, but I like to dream.
You know, it's pretty clear that Trump tried to steal the election. But instead, of recognizing and apologizing for that fact, his supporter want to count and recount and count some more the ballots in an election they lost. The argument isn't that wasn't secure, rather it's that we have decided not to be confident in it's security. I understand that is a problem for them, but what is the solution? We can make elections secure, but no amount of effort, not "forensic audit" can make people believe what they have a decision not to believe.
--Hiram
Wow. That's an amazing bit of projection, there. I have a proposition for you. Let all of these forensic audits proceed, and if we find proof that Republicans tried but failed to steal the election, we will concede that Americans really wanted a corrupt, senile old socialist to be President. But if, despite outrageous obstruction from Democrats, these audits prove that Biden stole the election, what will you do? Oh, and by the way, much of that proof has already been found. But Democrats will deny it. I've always suspected they held a rather fragile worldview.
Jerry,
To determine if the GOP cheated, you would need to audit all districts...
That is NOT what the GOP supports. As I asked before...
Would you support DEMs hiring an anti-GOP auditing company with no experience to check only the GOP leaning districts?
I mean it's clear enough Republicans at least tried to cheat. There are tapes of Trump's calls with Georgia election officials asking them to find votes.
What bugs Republican party leaders is that it was too easy to vote in 2020. They feel they were cheated, somethow, from one of their biggest electoral advantages, the low turnout of Democratic voters. Were they right?
Is it unethical, is it cheating, to change the voting rules to make it easier to vote when we know that such rule changes will benefit one party more than the other?
--Hiram
Here is another, related question.
Should Republicans support changes in election rules that make it easier for Republican voters to vote even when such measures might hurt the chances of Republican candidates to win elections?
--Hiram
Trump's actions certainly did seem wrong to me
And I am certain Jerry would have been freaking if any DEM President did the same.
The GOP has quite the challenge...
How to make it harder for poor, dumb DEMs to vote...
While keeping it is easy for poor, dumb GOPers to vote. :-)
Texas Audit Results
The change in election rules helped voters vote across the board, hence the record turnout and the record number of votes both presidential candidates received.
IMO, elections are about the voters, not the candidates. When Trump talked about whether he had standing, my reaction was "no", it is the voters who vote who have standing. Concerns, if there are any, about election integrity should come from the grassroots level. That's why claims that Biden should respond to Trump's challenge to the election never resonated with me. It really isn't the candidates job to defend the election. That's the job of the people who, at all levels, conducted it.
--Hiram
" if there are any, about election integrity should come from the grassroots level."
From whence GOP legal complaints, and there were many (largely valid), were promptly shut down by Biden's army of high-priced East Coast attorneys. He even bragged about it prior to the election.
John, from your cite: Toth said. "I mean, all the small counties are red."
Exactly. So the easiest way to introduce "election irregularities" into the result would be for a tiny few actors in a few large blue counties to do it, on their own and assisted by lax election law. And only a full forensic audit will find those things, if that. If the reported count cannot be backed up by actual paper ballots, or if it is, but many of the ballots are phony, then something is amiss. That is simple logic, but of course you will deny it could happen.
Interesting rationalizing to only check "those guys"...
I disagree with audits that cherry pick targets and hire politically motivated auditors.
And by grass roots, I think he meant people monitoring their own precinct, district, state, etc. Not a bunch of yahoos questioning the results in someone else's precinct, district and/or state.
Have you read any of the news regarding the audits in other states that really are not finding any problems?
The easiest way to manipulate elections is to decrease voter turnout. In unguarded moments in different contexts Republicans will say as much. I have heard Republicans ask how they could ever win elections with the rules as they were in 2020.
After the election, Trump and his close supporters made all sorts of claims about election fraud, none of which seemed to amount to much. But let's give some attention to the timeline here. Trump was complaining that the election was rigged long before ballots were counted or even cast. At those times there were not claims about Dominion voting machines or whatever, becaue they hadn't even been used yet. What did bother Trump were rules that made it easier for voters to vote, both Democratic and Republican voters. Those rules took away an advantage Republicans had and relied on, that Democrats vote at lower rates than Republicans.
So what's going to happen in 2020 and 2024. Clearly, the main priority for Republican legisltors is to make voting and elections more difficult. One way to do that is work to reduce confidence in elections. The audits are a part of that strategy. The ultimate goal, I think, is to do what Trump failed to do on January 6th, to send the choice of electors back to state legislatures. He failed in that attempt because Trump as a combination of stupidity and incompetence. But will we be as lucky next time?
As noted above...
"But Toth is not shy about the convenience at play. Moravec spoke with him and he explained his thinking.
[W]hile Toth said he would support a statewide effort, he also argued the undertaking would be too expensive and time-consuming. Asked if he would consider including some smaller counties, Toth replied, “What’s the point? I mean, all the small counties are red.”
And that, right there, is the crux of the issue."
"The easiest way to manipulate elections is to decrease voter turnout." Wrong. That is the normal way of politicking, to drive up the opponent's negatives to demotivate or discourage his supporters from showing up. The other good way is obvious theft of an election, making voting appear meaningless. Both are Democrat standard practice.
"And by grass roots, I think he meant people monitoring their own precinct, district, state, etc." Yet as soon as the sworn affidavits were filed, the high-buck, East-coast Biden legal team swooped in to get those /local/ cases tossed on technicalities, rather than the evidence. Biden even bragged about it.
From what I heard they did not need high end lawyers to have the crazy folk's affidavits tossed.
It is like you telling us that you saw voter fraud... And your being unable to provide ANY PROOF. While the sworn Election officials provide data and records. The court does not look highly on people like yourself wasting their time.
Maybe this is why you see fraud everywhere... :-)
Lying in an affidavit is a violation of law and a person who is caught lying could face perjury charges. But it’s a bit more complicated.
Affidavits that contain vague or second-hand accounts may be hard to prove as false. There are also many scenarios where a witness just misunderstands the situation or is mistaken in what they believe they heard or saw.
For instance, in the Trump vs. Wayne County case cited above, Judge Kenny wrote in his ruling, “Plaintiffs’ affiants did not have full understanding of TCF absent ballot tabulation.” He said if plaintiffs’ affiants would have participated in pre-election training sessions, they would have had a better understanding of the process. Many claims could be easily explained by election officials.
So technically - yes - if a person signs an affidavit with false information, they could be charged with perjury. But proving the person willfully lied can prove to be quite difficult in many cases.
Given Trump's name calling, the countless GOP attack ads, Trump & the GOP attacking the integrity of US Election system....
How can you even imply those behaviors are only done by the other tribe?
Are you truly that confused?
Go ahead. Continue to deny what I witnessed personally and for which I have documented proof. Continue to deny what I swore to (along with numerous others) before the court (and with no charges filed against me). Deny what those who attended the hearings, including our own lawyer, noted of the opposition and the recorded results of that hearing. And Deny that Joe Biden admitted that was the plan all along. THEN you can continue to deny all of the hundreds of documented cases of "voting irregularities." You continue to insist on replacing known reality with your own imagination. Fact: If Trump stole the election, why did Biden win?
That is the normal way of politicking, to drive up the opponent's negatives to demotivate or discourage his supporters from showing up.
As I said, it's the easiest way of manipulating elections. It takes a variety of forms. The points of negative campaigning isn't to change minds, it's to drive down turnout.
Those voter suppression tactics didn't work in 2020. Mail in ballots were one reason, but the choice by Republicans of a deeply unpopular candidate who actively alienated voters was another. Somehow, those factors were translated into the Republican mind as a form of cheating. They believed they had a right to win elections in way they win them, and that right was violated when they didn't. And now the old playbook is back in use. Polling places are closed, voting requirements are increased, candidates are being taught to say the word "giggling". Even now, unflattering pictures of Democrats are being searched for and cameras that take grainy movies are being ordered. Boredom will make it's triumphant return.
--Hiram
Well thankfully our country's procedures, law and order were strong enough to thwart the will of conspiracy theorists and a corrupt self serving politician. Hopefully it stays this way.
I have to wonder what the GOPers would think if it was the DEMs vilifying GOP controlled precincts, districts and states?
I never thought GOPers would be working so hard to undermine the right to vote and the democratic processes that are at the heart of our country. It is very disappointing.
Please provide a link to these...
"recorded results of that hearing"
"Those voter suppression tactics didn't work in 2020." Maybe, but in the very next breath you refer to a "deeply unpopular candidate." Why should that be, other than a massive, relentless, 5-year effort to define Trump in negative terms-- Russia collusion (ignoring Hilary's), Ukraine collusion (ignoring Biden's admitted corruption), etc., etc., and continued here. Yet he got MORE votes than in 2016, and Biden, hiding in his basement, got more than Obama ever did? Go ahead, tell me both sides cheated, or neither did.
Jerry,
Trump continuously and actively worked to alienate over half the US population by violating almost all of Carnegie's guidelines.
He was so divisive that he did a good job of increasing voter turn out. So he did at least accomplish that.
I can not believe you still support him. Maybe you should find a hero to worship who is more honest .
Trump has always been defined in negative terms. It's one of the great peculiarities of his candidacy and his career. I don't believe that anyone, not even his strongest supporters, took his claims of business success seriously. In the popular media, he always played the role of businessman as clown. His reality TV show was always an exercise in irony. In business terms, he was the anti Steve Jobs, the anti Bill Gates, and yes, even the anti Warren Buffet. Is there anyone who seriously disputes this?
The problem that Trump presents is that although his tactics, his divisiveness don't work nationally, they can work effectively enough locally in ways that the peculiarities of our political system can reward him with success. And note the depressive effect Trump's success has on the electorate and how that works in favor of his candidacy. People don't think the system works anymore. And if I wanted to prove that point, I don't know if I could make a better argument than the fact that candidates who lose the popular vote still get elected president.
--Hiram
I think you would be sadly disappointed at how many people think Trump was / is successful.
As for how he is treated, I just see it as karma or "you get what you give"... He lies, name calls, attacks needlessly, etc... Therefore he receives similar.
Face it, the Left in this country simply cannot tolerate a Republican that dishes it out as good as he gets. They are used to perpetrating the vilest slanders and lies with absolute impunity. They HATE that Trump was having none of it, and that common sense people all over the country found it refreshingly honest. A bit harsh, but only because that was the level of vitriol he was combating.
As for seeking a more honest politician, one needn't go very far to beat Biden and his ilk. But we're going to need a bigger lantern.
I think we tolerate Republicans who dish it out just fine. We certainly did tolerate Trump.
Republicans try to reduce turnout. They don't like it when too many people vote. While it is a free country, and they have the right to their opinion, the problem with those positions is that it is hard to put a positive spin on them. When the issue is the exclusion of people from the political process, it is hard to avoid the next issue, that is, which people should be excluded?
"Refreshingly honest" is something people say about politicians who just said something abhorrent. Other cliches are, "At least he was being honest", "it's common sense", and when all else fails the ever popular, "He was just joking."
--Hiram
Trump was such a national embarrassment :-O
Well, it is certainly nice to see that left-wing whackos are able to help with your meaningless character assassination and negative politicking. Too bad it did NOT succeed in driving down Republican turnout, as it usually would. Too bad Republicans did not play that game against Biden. Or did they, and then it was covered up by massive election theft?
Jerry,
Those are documented quotes by from Trump's own mouth or tweet.
He is on his third wife, he is a documented philanderer, he has taken advantage of bankruptcy laws multiple times, he pardoned crooked politicians and business friends, he abused this use of a charitable trust, he operated a fraudulent "college", etc.
These are simple proven facts, and yet you stand by him. I will never understand.
Too bad it did NOT succeed in driving down Republican turnout, as it usually would.
Democrats are interested in increasing turnout. Inevitably that means increasing Republican turnout, but that's pretty much okay with us. It seems obvious to me that the changes in rules in 2020 made it much easier for Republicans to vote, but I guess Republican Party leadership just aren't interested in things that make life easier for their voters.
Campaigning is always a two edged sword. What helps you with one group of voters will hurt you with another group of voters. The question with respect to any campaign effort is are you helping more than you are hurting?
Trump is an interesting example in that. No Republican politician, I believe, has been better at motivating and unifying his base, but he has done this at the cost of alienating people who are not part of his base. Essentially, he loses the popular vote in elections because he motivates his opposition more than he benefits from the way he motivates his base. Now this is true nationally, but it's not true in more localized elections, and of course we don't have one nationalized presidential elections, we have 50 or so local elections, which are weighted unevenly in terms of their impact on the outcome.
--Hiram
Get out the vote drives are very big with urban Democrats. They know that the vast majority of votes they get out, that would otherwise not vote, will vote for Democratic candidates.
I once ran across a newly formed Minneapolis Republican all aflame with devotion to Donald Trump. He told me that he was working on a get out the vote campaign in his neighborhood. It's the American Way right, people should vote. I guess I took pity on him, and sort of suggested to him, that no, getting his Democratic neighbors to the polls probably wasn't in the interests of his candidate. He was shocked and offended and not a little outraged by this. How could I be so unAmerican as to suggest that getting out the vote was not a good objective for him to pursue. I left it at that, confident in the knowledge that my guys would do just a little better in his neighborhood than they otherwise would.
--Hiram
It was nice of him to help you...
I wonder how long before he got tired of talking to DEMs who really disliked Trump?
He believed he could change minds. I believe in changing minds in roughly the same way I believe in unicorns. I don't rule out the possibility of either, it's just not something I have run across.
--Hiram
"I will never understand." One of the very few correct things you have said. You like to think you have a rational basis for your extreme bias, and use that to ignore the many wrong conclusions and choices to which that leads. You are your own strongest source of confirmation bias.
"it's just not something I have run across." --Hiram Surprising. I see it all the time. We generally call it "people who didn't know they were Republicans until they clearly saw Democrats" or "a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged." You are also validating what I have long said about who votes, and how they vote, which is 35% yellow dog Democrat, 30% hard core Republican, 30% who vote based on the last (usually negative) TV ad they saw, and 5% who actually vote based on the issues. Not including dead people and imaginary people, of course, who always vote Democrat.
Jerry,
Which of these do you deny?
1. on his third wife
2. a documented philanderer
3. taken advantage of bankruptcy laws multiple times
4. pardoned crooked politicians and business friends
5. abused use of a charitable trust
6. operated a fraudulent "college"
7. lies often and egregiously
He behaves in way that my parents taught me not to...
And yet they love him.
The power of cult leaders is incredible.
Trump would ask to have sex with your grand child and you would says yes... :-O
Source please. :-)
"Not including dead people and imaginary people, of course, who always vote Democrat."
"Which of these do you deny?" I don't deny them, I don't even acknowledge them, because they really don't matter to the job he did in office. You think it does, for some unexplained reason.
Source? Common knowledge, PLUS a personal investigation of the voter rolls, assisted by others. But you deny such realities.
Sorry that you hero worship such a man. :-(
And of course personal character matters in life, and especially as the POTUS. Who is going to trust a repeat liar and vow breaker other than his cult members?
Certainly no one else in the world would take him seriously. They quite literally could not trust a word he said.
Remember when he promised to love til death do they part... 3 times
Remember when he promised to pay back the loans, teach the students, use the money for charity, etc, etc, etc.
Yes I deny that only DEMs cheat.
"Sorry that you hero worship such a man." Sorry that you see a very sensible appraisal of his time in office in such totally negative terms, and then blame me for YOUR delusions.
How often do I have to say it, we're not electing a role model, but an effective administrator? And your comment about "no one else in the world" is absolutely laughable. Compare that to today, where other countries openly laugh at our Clown Prince.
It is like the theme of this thread, that we [you] cannot handle the truth, so your only defense of the ridiculous proposition that the election was fair and honest is to insist that Trump was a terrible president, supported by a mere 75 million people. He is OUT of office, by the way, so why the obsession, blinding you to all else, including "the truth"?
I am not the one contesting the election results months after they have been certified...
Or denying that Trump was SO BAD / OFFENSIVE that he cost the GOP the Presidency...
Those are simple truths that you seem to deny. I mean Trump was SO BAD that millions of life long GOPers like me voted for BIDEN !!! :-O
"Biden won 81,283,098 votes, or 51.3 percent of the votes cast. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. Trump won 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast."
It will be interesting to see what the GOP does in 2024? Do they go back to someone of high moral character like Romney, or do they double down on the lying conspiracy theorists?
Trump was SO BAD that millions of life long GOPers like me voted for BIDEN !!! :-O
And millions of life-long Democrats voted for Trump, giving him MORE votes in 2020 than in 2016. Biden "won" 81 million votes, but at least 6 million of those are probably fake. You have Never begun to prove otherwise, and fight any attempt to try.
First we have to get through 2022. Latest Rasmussen says election integrity is now the #1 issue, followed by immigration and crime. Democrats appear vulnerable. 2024 isn't looking good for them, either. Scuttlebutt is they are trying to find a way to quietly dump Kamala, even if (as appears likely) she becomes President between now and then.
Still can not handle the truth... It is so sad...
"Biden won 81,283,098 votes, or 51.3 percent of the votes cast. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. Trump won 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast."
If election's aren't honest, how will we choose our elected officials?
--Hiram
Maybe it's worth noting at this point, that if Trump had achieved his objectives in the aftermath of the 2020 campaign, the reconsideration of presidential electors by state legislatures, and the discarding of votes he regarded as being cast illegally, the election itself would not have been accepted as honest. The continuation of a Trump presidency under those circumstances would not have been considered legitimate by a majority of Americans.
The emerging legal position of the Republican Party is that state legislatures have the ultimate role in determining the selection of presidential electors. I can tell you, if those views prevail, the election will not be accepted as valid. Then where will we be?
--Hiram
"Biden won 81,283,098 votes, or 51.3 percent of the votes cast. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to have won more than 80 million votes. Trump won 74,222,958 votes, or 46.8 percent of the votes cast."
You keep saying that as if the election was completely honest, and most people do not believe that for an instant, while Democrats fight every opportunity to prove it was. You keep insisting your touchdown counts even though you had 12 men on the field.
Actually only the 32% who are Trump Cult members question the accuracy of the election
Of course if you spend most of your time at cult meetings, then it may seem that most people believe as you do.
The upside is that this country is run by the majority, and thankfully ~68% of Americans apparently believe in our country, its processes and its laws.
Let's hope it stays that way because as Hiram noted, it will be a mess if majority stops believing in our country.
This seems to be the model Jerry wants the US to follow
Democrats fight every opportunity to prove it was.
Politicians are under no obligation to prove elections are honest. That's up to the election officials.
There are people who work to undermine confidence in elections. That's different thing from whether or not elections are honest. It is certainly appropriate to oppose those efforts.
We may decide not to have confidence elections. But then, in the words of Jed Bartlet, What's next? How will we choose our poliitical leaders?
--HIram
" How will we choose our poliitical leaders? " What makes you think "we" chose them the last time? Election officials actively worked to make loopholes available to those who wanted to use them, and in a few cases used them themselves. "Election integrity" is seen as a top issue by some 89% of voters. Why are you not one of them?
What makes you think "we" chose them the last time?
The question remains. How will we choose our political leaders? I should also point out that in 2016 we chose Hillary Clinton, and yet Donald Trump because president.
--Hiram
Jerry,
I think you are abusing the term "Election Integrity".
To most of us "Election Integrity" is more than just making it harder for people to vote.
It is also ensuring that EVERY legal American voter has easy and safe access to do so.
What is the source of your 89% number? Maybe then I could learn their definition.
the number comes from Rasmussen. And yes, we use the terms "election integrity," "voter fraud," "improper voting" and "election theft" all pretty much interchangeably. So long as the huge questions remain I don't see that it makes much difference.
I will ask one more time, no doubt futilely, How is it "voter suppression" if we do not allow dead people and non-existent people to cast ballots? Should it not BE harder to cast an illegal vote?
Unfortunately you and your ilk want to make it harder for eligible citizens to vote. :-(
And you support partisan manipulation by politicians / legislatures in local elections. :-(
All things that harm election integrity.
Back when you likely would have supported the Jim Crow laws. :-O
Rasmussen Poll
Maybe this is what you are thinking of?
"Eighty-two percent (82%) of Democrats agree with Biden that America is “facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War,” including 52% who Strongly Agree. On the other side, 84% of Republicans agree with Trump that swing states must enact election reform, including 62% who Strongly Agree."
I am betting both sides have very different views regarding what is wrong.
How is it "voter suppression" if we do not allow dead people and non-existent people to cast ballots?
It is voter suppression when voters are removed from the voter rolls because someone thinks they are deaed. But this reflects a deeper problem. Since people are always dying, there will always be the possibility that some live person will cast a vote in their place. There are two ways to ensure that doesn't happen. For people to stop dying, or for us to stop having elections. And we seem to be at that point in this discussion. Elections, it is suggested at least are not valid when there is a possibility of fraud. Since no election has ever been conducted or will ever be conducted without the possibility of fraud, no election has been or ever will be, valid. So I return to my unanswered question.
What's the alternative?
==Hiram
Hiram, you are presenting a false choice. The solution is to minimize the possibility for election fraud. The Secretary of State is responsible for receiving SS death notices, USPS change of address info, and correcting the voter rolls accordingly. Some do not, creating a huge opportunity for fraud. The simple solution to minimizing it is for the SOS to be forced to do their job, rather than enable that possible fraud, yet folks like John think that preventing dead people and fictional people from voting is somehow "making it harder for eligible citizens to vote." That's nuts.
The solution is to minimize the possibility for election fraud.
The problem is that people who claim to want to minimize election fraud are also trying to steal elections, not in some sort of abstract theoretical way, but in ways that leave evidence. We have tapes of President Trump asking election officials to find more votes.
The way to minimize fraud is to minimize elections. And note that is the proposal Republicans were making in 2020 in asking the legislatures to send different electors to Washington other than those chosen by the people. And that is the emerging Republican legal position now, that it is the legislatures who are the ultimate arbiter in the choice of electors. If that happened, the outcome of the election would not be regarded as valid, and then what happens?
--Hiram
Hiram,
Agreed. The folks like Jerry are not interested in honest elections.
If they were they would be focused on all districts and states, instead they are only focused on districts and states where they lost.
It is a sad state of affairs and very un-American.
If they were they would be focused on all districts and states, instead they are only focused on districts and states where they lost."
Let us examine your argument rationally. If cheating did occur, surely it occurred where the caused the "wrong person" to win? What is the point of examining all those places where we know the laws were followed?
And that will be your last insult in this thread.
The President with the ~40% approval rating was the "wrong person" and the "unpopular person", that is why he lost. And yet this still apparently does not make sense to you?
It is so strange.
Even with his falling approval numbers, he is more popular than Trump ever was.
If I was supporting efforts to make it look like the "unpopular person" won.
Would it seem rational, appropriate or supporting election integrity?
The real nightmare, and we might have come close to realizing it, would have been if AG Barr had backed Trump's claims of fraud. He famously didn't, of course, which ensured that Trump's claims would never achieve basic credibility, but that was, as Wellington described Waterloo, a very near run thing. Any support at all for Trump's fraud claims, could have given state legislatures the justification they needed to select electors contrary to the voters wishes.
--Hiram
Yes it was wonderful that system and responsible individuals withstood the pressure of a delusional President.
"If cheating did occur, surely it occurred where the caused the "wrong person" to win?"
In other words, you have no idea if cheating occurred in States that Trump won, and you don't care.
You're a moronic Trump cultist.
John, why do you continue to entertain this insane person?
Moose
Because for better or worse...
Jerry represents about 30% of Americans. :-O
He says similar things to what I here from the other Trump / FOX cultists...
It is a very strange period in America's history.
Post a Comment