Democrat voter fraud is on!

[inudesu]

The fact that the courts are ruling the same (SC and lower courts alike) points to something more common than the SC “protecting its turf.”

Not sure who the pundit is, but his speculation on this issue undermines his credibility in total.

Fantastic piece on the judicial: https://thedispatch.com/p/the-path-back-from-conspiracy

One institution in particular has kept its head and helped the country do the same: the federal judiciary.

Judges haven’t always been great at resisting the temptations of the culture war, needless to say. They have frequently been part of the problem with contemporary American politics. But when it comes to contending with conspiracy in particular, the institutional fortitude of the courts has offered some clues to how our broader political culture might do better.

Notably, resistance to the pull of polarized conspiracy has extended to judges nominated by President Trump himself. Faced with claims of election fraud, every judge has demanded evidence, argument, and an adherence to proper procedure, and refused to tolerate groundless fantasy. These judges have done this not as agents or opponents of the president but as professionals—representatives of a set of institutions whose claim to authority is rooted in their commitment to a standard of integrity. It would have been good for us to see all the conspiracies of recent years scrutinized that way.

[inudesu]

Thankfully, despite the baseless doubt being driven by irresponsible "leaders" there hasn't been more of this kind of thing:

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/94699...m_term=nprnews

[inudesu]

A politician with some guts!?!?!?

https://www.businessinsider.com/cong...-trump-2020-12

It's telling, of course, that he isn't seeking reelection and is quite wealthy - so he doesn't necessarily have to fear much in the way of retaliation (politically).

[Guisslapp]

Selfishly I am looking forward to a day that Republican politicians stop catering to their crazies so it will be safe not to vote Democrat. One can dream.

[dawg80]

Selfishly I am looking forward to a day that Republican politicians stop catering to their crazies so it will be safe not to vote Democrat. One can dream.

As if the Dems don't cater to their crazies as well. But, I reject, overall, the notion that "Republican politicians" cater to "crazies." The way this statement is written, it says 100% of all GOP politicians court "crazies." That is simply not true. Secondly, I reject what is an obvious false narrative that President Trump is supported by "crazies." I understand that commie, bastard, globalists despise Trump's version of "nationalism," which his philosophy does indeed embrace, at least the positive aspects of it. But, I categorially reject that makes those who agree and support said policy "crazies." Unless you want to say we "crazily LOVE America!" That, I can agree with.

Further, Goosey, you have negative credibility since others who profess to be supporters of the GOP and the true "republican" concept of governing (note the little "r"), have been able to support the GOP and GOP candidates, even as they expressed dissatisfaction with Trump. You, on the other hand, have attacked every GOP candidate you can, such as supporting Beto over Ted Cruz for senator. So, please, spare me this BS of "I can support the GOP if not for Trumpism." That is utter bullshit and you know it...more importantly, most of us here know it.

[Guisslapp]

Trump and the GOP leaders have been embracing wack conspiracy theories and promoting anti-science and anti-factual voices to serve their political agenda despite the known harm that these views cause.

I will never be a Republican. But I do not want to be a de facto Democrat either. But as long as Republican leaders continue to pose an existential threat to the country, my hands are morally tied. I have to vote against them regardless of policy differences I have with Democrats.

I disagree with Trump and this new conservative belief that globalization is bad. That, by itself, would not cause me to vote Democrat. It is the obsessive promotion of the counter-factual and the attacks on critical institutional norms that pose a clear and present danger to our Republic. Socialism is a much more distant threat than what the Republicans have ginned up.

[techman05]

Tried to listen to the hearing for a bit this morning, but the Dems started lying and I can’t handle that. For the libs, it’s all about avoiding the issue by stating things that may be factual while not addressing the problem

One pundit says there is no bias against conservative outlets or comments by big tech. They will quote the fact that conservative outlets are the most followed and conservative comments are the most reposted as their defense. They will not, however, address the fact that being the most followed might mean a majority of people believe as they do. They won’t acknowledge that they have the most reposts and retweets because conservatives know in 2 hours all their comments will be deleted by FB or other. We have to act fast or no one will see the truth.

Voter fraud isn’t wide spread enough to affect the final outcome, therefore it’s not a problem needing to be addressed. So, they argue that since the worst case scenario didn’t occur, that the problem is a figment. Okay, let’s expand this logic to every day life. I get pulled over for going 80 in a 50. Worst case scenario is I kill someone, but that didn’t happen. No ticket, no jail time, right? Or, I steal $100,000 from a bank. Worst case is the bank closes. Since they have insurance and they don’t have to close, I don’t go to jail.

All the sudden, we can do whatever we want and only suffer a consequence when the absolute worst that could happen actually does happen.

[Guisslapp]

Tried to listen to the hearing for a bit this morning, but the Dems started lying and I can’t handle that. For the libs, it’s all about avoiding the issue by stating things that may be factual while not addressing the problem

One pundit says there is no bias against conservative outlets or comments by big tech. They will quote the fact that conservative outlets are the most followed and conservative comments are the most reposted as their defense. They will not, however, address the fact that being the most followed might mean a majority of people believe as they do. They won’t acknowledge that they have the most reposts and retweets because conservatives know in 2 hours all their comments will be deleted by FB or other. We have to act fast or no one will see the truth.

Voter fraud isn’t wide spread enough to affect the final outcome, therefore it’s not a problem needing to be addressed. So, they argue that since the worst case scenario didn’t occur, that the problem is a figment. Okay, let’s expand this logic to every day life. I get pulled over for going 80 in a 50. Worst case scenario is I kill someone, but that didn’t happen. No ticket, no jail time, right? Or, I steal $100,000 from a bank. Worst case is the bank closes. Since they have insurance and they don’t have to close, I don’t go to jail.

All the sudden, we can do whatever we want and only suffer a consequence when the absolute worst that could happen actually does happen.

As we have seen on this forum, most conservative posts tend to be based on misinformation. You guys just spread it really fast so not everyone gets the message that the post was full of errors.

[Guisslapp]

For example, you guys have clearly missed the fact that isolated voter fraud is dealt with criminally when it is unearthed. Even the conservative think tank CATO institute keeps a running list of all the criminal penalties against those that commit voter fraud.

[Guisslapp]

Which is why the studies show that people that watch FoxNews know less about current events than those that watch no news at all.

[techman05]

So, who is going to jail for allowing dead voters, underaged voters, or absentee voters who signed and dated request forms after the deadline? Or, I’m sure you can point out the people who went to jail after signing sworn testimony to this affect who were proven false.

[inudesu]

Tried to listen to the hearing for a bit this morning, but the Dems started lying and I can’t handle that. For the libs, it’s all about avoiding the issue by stating things that may be factual while not addressing the problem

One pundit says there is no bias against conservative outlets or comments by big tech. They will quote the fact that conservative outlets are the most followed and conservative comments are the most reposted as their defense. They will not, however, address the fact that being the most followed might mean a majority of people believe as they do. They won’t acknowledge that they have the most reposts and retweets because conservatives know in 2 hours all their comments will be deleted by FB or other. We have to act fast or no one will see the truth.

Voter fraud isn’t wide spread enough to affect the final outcome, therefore it’s not a problem needing to be addressed. So, they argue that since the worst case scenario didn’t occur, that the problem is a figment. Okay, let’s expand this logic to every day life. I get pulled over for going 80 in a 50. Worst case scenario is I kill someone, but that didn’t happen. No ticket, no jail time, right? Or, I steal $100,000 from a bank. Worst case is the bank closes. Since they have insurance and they don’t have to close, I don’t go to jail.

All the sudden, we can do whatever we want and only suffer a consequence when the absolute worst that could happen actually does happen.

I don't think that's been the case I've seen made.

Granted, much of what I've read isn't actually from what you'd (credibly) call liberals (I mean, many would - but that's all really relative).

I'm pretty sure that most would agree that where there might be fraud or attempted fraud - it should be pursued. But that hasn't been the Trump perspective at all. It's "there was fraud, there was lots of it, it's the only reason I lost, we can prove it (but can't)."

Nobody (I've read) has said, "let's not investigate at all" or "let's not take action on proven cases."

[inudesu]

So, who is going to jail for allowing dead voters, underaged voters, or absentee voters who signed and dated request forms after the deadline? Or, I’m sure you can point out the people who went to jail after signing sworn testimony to this affect who were proven false.

They're isolated cases, so you don't often hear about them.

Or you hear about the investigation but while it's pending everyone forgets and unless there is a big dramatic situation nobody ever knows.

There is a woman locally (to me) who was sentenced to years in prison for mistakenly voting before totally clearing her probation (appeals have been going forever).

There was a case in Georgia where they had footage of someone from Florida trying to get people to temporarily move to Georgia to vote that came to light and is just now being investigated (not for the Presidential election, for the runoff).

We have laws, they get enforced when there is reason.

I think it's harder to cheat (certainly at any kind of systemic level) than is assumed.

[Guisslapp]

So, who is going to jail for allowing dead voters, underaged voters, or absentee voters who signed and dated request forms after the deadline? Or, I’m sure you can point out the people who went to jail after signing sworn testimony to this affect who were proven false.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

[dawg80]

Which is why the studies show that people that watch FoxNews know less about current events than those that watch no news at all.

That is so utterly wrong it is comical! LOL! You keep posting this BS because you follow the socialist/fascist playbook if you spout a lie long enough people will start to believe it. Doesn't work here.