Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[GMDino]

Starting to think the republicans really aren't serious about this...

[GMDino]

(03-23-2024, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: That might be understandable enough, call them fanatical, but the issue I have with it is that they are not fanatical about Democrats specifically. You, imho, can not count them as firmly in their side's camp as you have to put the Capitol stormers into Trump's camp. The BLM protesters, fanatic and violent or not, would not listen to any democrat as devoutly as all the Capitol folks would have listened to Trump. I'd even argue most of them merely see democrats as the lesser evil of the two alternatives around, that this is the whole basis of any real party affiliation. Which imho is why a BLM protest does not look like a democrat party event, unlike the Capitol storm that quite visibly was 100% in Trump's name.



I can't go with "both sides suck", not that I want to disagree in principle, as the only viable answer, for one because in any comparison like that, it sure inherently matters to me if the equivalency is fair or who is actually worse. And when it comes to that, imho it's not that black and white, there's still different variations of grey. I most certainly don't call all democrats blameless, but the most influential liberal politicians did not endorse violence, most certainly the presidential candidate did not. While the other candidate, the one that dominates his party, "loves" the capitol rioters, calls them incredible patriots and whatnot. And as long as there's no important democrat (not just some isolated backbencher) calling a stone-throwing, car-burning BLM rioter something akin to that, I feel the comparison falls flat already. And that's not even considering the whole coup aspect.



Oh sure, and I would agree that there's a lot of downplaying around that seems uncalled for, indeed on both sides. But that can not be the basis to declare democrats equally at fault for BLM riots as Trump is for the Capitol storm. That, to me, is just as much of an unreasonable simplification as claiming one side is totally spotless would be.

Just as a personal observation I think most people, on both sides, say the marching and protesting are fine...maybe even good in some case, and denounce the violence and rioting.  There was no violence at the Women's March right after Trump took office.  

Personally, of course, I think protesting the preventable death of a citizen is better than trying to stop congress from legally certifying the election results.  Neither should have been violent.  We can't say for sure any violence during a BLM protest was about police violence.  We CAN say for sure the Jan 6th violence was because of the election and Trump.

Just as those on the left say it was "a few bad apples" that used the Floyd and BLM protests as cover for destruction I also say not everyone there on January 6th was violent and destructive.  But the ones that were were being led by President Donald John Trump to do it.  They were ALL there because he told them it would be "wild" and to support him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-23-2024, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: That might be understandable enough, call them fanatical, but the issue I have with it is that they are not fanatical about Democrats specifically. You, imho, can not count them as firmly in their side's camp as you have to put the Capitol stormers into Trump's camp. The BLM protesters, fanatic and violent or not, would not listen to any democrat as devoutly as all the Capitol folks would have listened to Trump. I'd even argue most of them merely see democrats as the lesser evil of the two alternatives around, that this is the whole basis of any real party affiliation. Which imho is why a BLM protest does not look like a democrat party event, unlike the Capitol storm that quite visibly was 100% in Trump's name.

They certainly aren't loyal followers in the same sense, but there aren't many (any?) GOP voters among them.

Quote:I can't go with "both sides suck", not that I want to disagree in principle, as the only viable answer, for one because in any comparison like that, it sure inherently matters to me if the equivalency is fair or who is actually worse. And when it comes to that, imho it's not that black and white, there's still different variations of grey. I most certainly don't call all democrats blameless, but the most influential liberal politicians did not endorse violence, most certainly the presidential candidate did not. While the other candidate, the one that dominates his party, "loves" the capitol rioters, calls them incredible patriots and whatnot. And as long as there's no important democrat (not just some isolated backbencher) calling a stone-throwing, car-burning BLM rioter something akin to that, I feel the comparison falls flat already. And that's not even considering the whole coup aspect.

There are other areas where they don't compare that aren't nearly as flattering.  For one, sheer numbers, of both incidents and violence.  The Capitol, as awful as it was, was one single event.  The only death was a protestor.  Contrast that with the multiple fatalities at BLM riots, coupled with hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.  The most common estimate I've seen is $2 billion.  I also have to disagree with your characterization of only "back benchers" in the Dem party supporting them.  Harris actively raised bail money for people arrested during the riots. There are entire compilations off prominent Dems failing to condemn the riots, and arguably encouraging them.  Hell, the mayor of Seattle actively encouraged the creation of the CHAZ/CHOP area, calling it a "summer of love".

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/chop-seattle-mayor-walks-back-summer-of-love-comment

Multiple murders were subsequently committed in that area, btw.  

Quote:Oh sure, and I would agree that there's a lot of downplaying around that seems uncalled for, indeed on both sides. But that can not be the basis to declare democrats equally at fault for BLM riots as Trump is for the Capitol storm. That, to me, is just as much of an unreasonable simplification as claiming one side is totally spotless would be.

Equally at fault?  No, I'd agree with you there.  And, no, there isn't a direct comparison.  But there doesn't need to be to acknowledge the role both parties played in these incidents.  Nor does the inability to draw a direct comparison exonerate the Dems responsible, both by action and inaction, for what occurred in those riots.  As I said, there is no moral high ground for the Dems to seize here.  We both agree they should all be condemned, nor does one exculpate the other.

[hollodero]

(03-23-2024, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They certainly aren't loyal followers in the same sense, but there aren't many (any?) GOP voters among them.

Nah there probably aren't, but what does that really prove? A party can be blamed for what their followers do in their name, not so much (not saying not at all) for everything people associated with the left or right do. BLM does not listen to democrats. There's still a responsibility to address it properly, which I would agree with you did not really happen, I thought so as well. But that's how far it goes. You directly compare not condemning violence harshly enough with someone actively endorsing and applauding violence. That just doesn't sound right.

(03-23-2024, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are other areas where they don't compare that aren't nearly as flattering.  For one, sheer numbers, of both incidents and violence.  The Capitol, as awful as it was, was one single event.  The only death was a protestor.  Contrast that with the multiple fatalities at BLM riots, coupled with hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.  The most common estimate I've seen is $2 billion.

Sure, it wasn't harmless and solely emphasizing the "mostly peaceful" aspect went too far at times in my opinion as well. If 2 billion is correct, that is a lot of destroying, no reason to downplay it in any way. I'm not argueing that, I mainly argue that the response of Trump/GOP to the Capitol rioters is far worse still than the arguably lacking response of democrats, imho demonstrably worse. For one, the former was an active coup attempt in my book, which has totally different ramifications for the very fabric of the country and democracy. Which probably would be clearer if the Trump-sticker-heavy Capitol rioters actually had gotten hold of Pelosi or Pence or whoever they were after. But, first and foremost, it's all the Trump flags and that Trump actually could have stopped it and didn't. This was happening on one party's (or one guy's, but there's little difference these days) behalf, unlike the BLM riots that no democrat could have stopped with a tweet.

(03-23-2024, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I also have to disagree with your characterization of only "back benchers" in the Dem party supporting them.  Harris actively raised bail money for people arrested during the riots. There are entire compilations off prominent Dems failing to condemn the riots, and arguably encouraging them.  Hell, the mayor of Seattle actively encouraged the creation of the CHAZ/CHOP area, calling it a "summer of love".

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/chop-seattle-mayor-walks-back-summer-of-love-comment

Multiple murders were subsequently committed in that area, btw.  

Yeah I happily condemn that guy for acting in a highly irresponsible manner. I'd still argue the mayor of Seattle is not that much of an influential figure than Trump (or any high ranking party member) is. Not to defend democrats too intensely, but when you try to fit every left leaning political currents into one party you will have certain fringes. I would extend the GOP the same courtesy for some of their more conspicuous figures. Just, when they undermine the whole party and are presidential candidates, they're somewhat more impactful than a mayor. Also, as apparent in your link said mayor faced serious backlash and had to walk back some comments (and does not run again), which does not exonerate him; still I'd wish Trump would have done the same or the GOP had done the same to Trump.

(03-23-2024, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Equally at fault?  No, I'd agree with you there.  And, no, there isn't a direct comparison.  But there doesn't need to be to acknowledge the role both parties played in these incidents.  Nor does the inability to draw a direct comparison exonerate the Dems responsible, both by action and inaction, for what occurred in those riots.  As I said, there is no moral high ground for the Dems to seize here.  We both agree they should all be condemned, nor does one exculpate the other.

Well, you drew the direct comparison, and then the question whether these are really equal cases in terms of blame is a logical one to follow. I'd understand that moral high ground is a difficult concept. I'd rather argue Trump/the GOP, for reasons stated, have moral lowground.

[Luvnit2]

The Jan.6th riot was no acceptable. The Jan. 6th committee's report was predetermined.

The narrative of the committee was destroying Trump, not get all of the facts. There are always 2 sides to every story. The committee purposely refused to report any findings of Trump in fact did ask for more security. There are now at least 5 witnesses confirming it.

Again, one more example of TDS by Democrats and never Trumpers (fair committees allow minority leader to appoint their committee members, Pelosi stacked the committee on purpose. They did not want the truth, they wanted to create a show (hired Hollywood to produce it).

The truth shall set you free. In one more case, Democrats lies and attempt to destroy a POTUS will backfire.

[*pally*]

(03-24-2024, 01:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The Jan.6th riot was no acceptable. The Jan. 6th committee's report was predetermined.  

The narrative of the committee was destroying Trump, not get all of the facts. There are always 2 sides to every story. The committee purposely refused to report any findings of Trump in fact did ask for more security. There are now at least 5 witnesses confirming it.

Again, one more example of TDS by Democrats and never Trumpers (fair committees allow minority leader to appoint their committee members, Pelosi stacked the committee on purpose. They did not want the truth, they wanted to create a show (hired Hollywood to produce it).

The truth shall set you free. In one more case, Democrats lies and attempt to destroy a POTUS will backfire.

who testified that they heard TRUMP ask for more security?  You have testimony that someone who says he overheard Mark Meadows, in a phone conversation with a person whose identity he could not independently confirm,  CLAIM that he offered but he can't testify that Trump actually offered it.  There is no testimony from Mark Meadows saying differently.  You have testimony from other people disputing this claim

and as the Commander in Chief of the DC National Guard and as someone who had access to the intelligence surrounding the "rally" why didn't he show good judgment and override any objections?  And when it was shown they were needed why the unexplainable delay in ordering them to DC?

You want to have it both ways...you want him to get credit for knowing that more security was needed and blame others for rejecting it but the responsibility was all his.

[Dill]

I agree with Pally and Dino here, as they discern essential differences in law and fact, and with Hollo: It matters who is "actually worse."

And it matters by what values/standards we determine "worse." Those values are the real stake now. They seem to be evaporating amidst accusations of TDS.

Do more broken windows in Portland make those riots worse than an insurrection directed from the highest office in the land to steal an election? As Dino notes, there is a difference between protesting a police murder and surging into the Capitol to "stop congress from certifying election results." As Hollo said in another post, one "has totally different ramifications for the very fabric of the country and democracy."  To which I'd add, it has international ramifications as well, among both allies and enemies who can see the stakes better than many Americans apparently can.

BLM or the "modern left" or whomever is supposedly the other term of such false equivalences to the Capitol insurrection were not in communication with and being directed by a president and his staff. 

Has anyone noticed that Biden has not vowed to go after the police/prosecutors who arrested BLM protestors?? So long as Biden is not successfully campaigning to music sung by imprisoned protestors or promising to "free the hostages" if re-elected and the like, then counting heads to force Democrats to acknowledge their "role" in riots they didn't direct or approve seems deflection from the real stakes of a Trump re-election. 

A number of Congressional Republicans condemned Trump's role in the Capitol riots, then did a 180 when they saw the base was not with them. Now they are working actively to get him back into power. Their legislative counterparts in swing states are preparing to shift control of electoral votes from their voters to the legislature if the vote does go as they wish, and they now have a playbook for paralyzing elections with claims of fraud and a party apparatus to back it. Trump, though out of office, can still block legislation to prevent the work of government. The Capitol riots were no "one off"; they were the beginning of an organized push for autocracy.

So on Trump's side of the aisle, we've hit just about every index of party autocratization --including what Hollo, with cool understatement, calls "the coup aspect." The false equivalence should just end, full stop, right there.

But it does not end there because . . . BOTH sides suck?  ALL riots should be condemned??  TDS??? 

Thus dissolves a clear choice between normalcy and constitutional crisis, chaos.

[hollodero]

(03-24-2024, 06:28 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with Pally and Dino here, as they discern essential differences in law and fact, and with Hollo: It matters who is "actually worse."

But it does not end there because . . . BOTH sides suck?  ALL riots should be condemned??  TDS??? 

I agree with everything in your entire statement. The only thing I observe time and again that I feel like adding is that imho many liberals use the "who is worse" aspect to excuse, or say flat-out dismiss, each and every precarious developments or misdeeds happening on their side of the aisle. I often read statements seemingly akin to "Trump is worse, hence nothing to see here, case closed - disagree and you're with Trump". Which, in my humble opinion, leads to many more independent, gettable voters getting pushed away.

[Dill]

(03-26-2024, 08:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with everything in your entire statement. The only thing I observe time and again that I feel like adding is that imho many liberals use the "who is worse" aspect to excuse, or say flat-out dismiss, each and every precarious developments or misdeeds happening on their side of the aisle. I often read statements seemingly akin to "Trump is worse, hence nothing to see here, case closed - disagree and you're with Trump". Which, in my humble opinion, leads to many more independent, gettable voters getting pushed away.

I keeping thinking we are on the same page with most of this. But the bolded makes me unsure. I'm not aware of anyone who says "disagree and you're with Trump," though some of us do understand how "both sidesism" and the general undermining of criticism of Trump as just "hate" tends to deflate a threat we should be recognizing. 

We agree on the danger of Trump, but see it playing out in rather different rhetorical environments, in which arguments have rather different effects.

To explain that, I'll start from a distance. I've noticed that several times when I've entered discussion about the history of U.S. slavery and its repercussions in our politics, someone or some group has reminded me that "black people had slaves too." Why do they believe that needs to be said? I can only guess they aren't hearing history and an attempt to understand current US institutions and voter behavior. They are sensing race blame, apparently of a sort that can only be avoided if the history is avoided, or there is a reminder "both sides do it."

Something like that may have been at work in the recent revisions of Florida public school history curriculum, to include positive comments about how slavery helped slaves and speculation that two blacks may have killed some whites during the white massacre of a black community. So both sides do it? Black people can massacre too? 

When you jump into this forum with your trenchant and very informed critiques of U.S. politics, I focus on the problems you are addressing. I don't have an irrepressible urge to remind you there are bad politicians in Austria too. (Though you'd probably welcome that, lol.) I don't feel that "needs to be said" because we're not talking about Austria and you are not "attacking" the US because you "hate" us. 

But I think there are people who have a non-analytical mindset which sees historical/political discussions as always primarily a leveraging of moral positions from which to denounce others. If you like America you don't criticize it. We (whites?) had slavery? Well ok, so did they ("Blacks" in general? Somewhere?)! I'm reminded of a Regnery Press publication on the Civil War which makes a big point of reviewing northern states which had slavery and advancing claims that blacks fought with the Confederate Army. (See, they weren't so racist! and anyway the North did it too! Real issue was states rights.)

From within that mindset, critiques of Trump of a sort you and I regularly make ALWAYS sound like so much "proving who's worse." Speaking for myself, I am warning of a danger with serious consequences. Who's worse is of no consequence. What is of consequence is an autocrat, backed by a leader-worshiping party, taking the White House and ready to prosecute "treason."  My goal in warning about that is to prevent it, not to make some individual soul in a sports team forum feel less.

So if there are "gettable voters" with this mindset, it's going to be very hard to get them, if the reasons for voting against Trump automatically make them feel "worse," given the amount of moral ammunition Trump gives the other side.

If you approach this persuasive task constantly mentioning or admitting that, of course, Dems have their bad guys too, then I fear that works more like a Regnery Press book. The targets of persuasion hear "both sides do it" when, on the most critical issue of threatening democracy, one side is manifestly NOT doing it. Whether some Dems are corrupt or say nice things about a BLM riot is not the issue. We are making arguments in a politicized media environment in which it is in one side's interest to deflate the threat, primarily via serial equivalence. 

Wednesday morning Karl Rove was on a Fox morning show addressing the Rona McDaniel firing as suppression of free speech. As far as her election denialism, Rove asked what about John Lewis, who said Bush was not legitimate back in 2008? Like "oh those Dems, making such a big deal about a president persuading tens of millions of people a lie was true and getting them to act on that knowledge to invalidate an election." But they deny elections too! "The dem double standard."  Thread after thread in this forum seems to go that direction. Someone posts some Trump horror, and three or four posts in people are already diluting it.

[hollodero]

(03-29-2024, 08:50 AM)Dill Wrote: I keeping thinking we are on the same page with most of this. But the bolded makes me unsure. I'm not aware of anyone who says "disagree and you're with Trump,"

Weird, I see that happening all the time.

(03-29-2024, 08:50 AM)Dill Wrote: So both sides do it? Black people can massacre too? 

I find that to be a loaded example that does not represent my stance. And the same goes for the other examples you listed.

(03-29-2024, 08:50 AM)Dill Wrote: If you approach this persuasive task constantly mentioning or admitting that, of course, Dems have their bad guys too, then I fear that works more like a Regnery Press book. The targets of persuasion hear "both sides do it" when, on the most critical issue of threatening democracy, one side is manifestly NOT doing it. Whether some Dems are corrupt or say nice things about a BLM riot is not the issue. We are making arguments in a politicized media environment in which it is in one side's interest to deflate the threat, primarily via serial equivalence. 

So this might illustrate the difference of opinion most clearly. For one, I think you're right, there is a clear danger from the right that is unique. I don't think that what Trump did in respect to the elections, or in respect to thrive for a dictator-like reign in general, is comparable to things Abrams or Hillary or whoever important from the democrats stated or aims for. And I sure say so, loudly and clearly and time and again. I'm not advocating to let narratives full of false equivalencies and faulty parallels just stand uncommented to comfort those who make or follow these points. You, however, imho take it a step further. Eg by associating mentioning "bad guys" on the left with some historic parallel from the civil war that isn't all that similar. I would advocate to just keep it real, to keep it real as you'd bold it, that's all. And part of that is, of course, claiming that the Trump-infested GOP is indeed worse in many respects, including highly important ones. However, I don't find it to be dangerous or unwise to mention (or "admit" as you put it) all the things that are (often subjectively, at times more objectively) wrong with the left and I feel it makes my stances more credible, not less effective. You claim it is "not the issue" multiple times, reaction to BLM is not the issue, who's worse is "of no consequence" etc, but of course for people these are issues and I find it highly convenient to claim "for the good of the country they better not be". That will persuade no one and imho gets blatantly close to giving all things liberal a wide reaching carte blanche on the sole basis that Trump is worse and more dangerous. Imho, this attitude contributes quite a lot to him not getting less popular.

I am aware that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue, so I will leave it be.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-29-2024, 08:50 AM)Dill Wrote: If you approach this persuasive task constantly mentioning or admitting that, of course, Dems have their bad guys too, then I fear that works more like a Regnery Press book. The targets of persuasion hear "both sides do it" when, on the most critical issue of threatening democracy, one side is manifestly NOT doing it. Whether some Dems are corrupt or say nice things about a BLM riot is not the issue. We are making arguments in a politicized media environment in which it is in one side's interest to deflate the threat, primarily via serial equivalence. 

Are the Democrats really not working to subvert democracy into their favor?  I mean pulling out mail in voting for the 2020 election has all the earmarks of subversive action intended to gain an edge. I find it very interesting the only the Democratic party in the US felt the need to muddy electoral waters with mail in voting requiring no ID to gain said ballot of course, under the guise of pandemic safety of course, while the rest of the developed nations in the world seem to have taken mail in voting off the table as an option for the most part.

https://heartland.org/opinion/most-developed-countries-have-banned-mass-mail-in-voting-the-united-states-must-do-the-same/

Quote:Before the 2020 presidential election, mail-in voting played a relatively minor role in U.S. elections. But, that changed after dozens of state officials used the pandemic to circumvent state legislatures and pass rules that allowed them to send tens of millions of absentee ballots based on outdated and inaccurate voter registration rolls.


Despite this abrupt pivot in how the 2020 election was conducted, we have been told time and again that the 2020 election was the most safe and secure in history. If this is true—that mass mail-in voting is as safe and secure as traditional in-person voting—then why have the vast majority of developed countries outlawed this practice?

The answer to that question is simple and straightforward. Most First World nations know for a fact that mass mail-in voting is not safe nor secure and almost certainly results in a deluge of illegal ballots being cast and counted.
Take Europe for example, which has basically banned mass mail-in voting across the continent for decades. There are 27 countries in the European Union (EU), of which 17 have banned mail-in voting unless the citizen lives overseas. In six of those nations, voters are required to present photo identification to receive a mail-in ballot. In six others, mail-in voting has been basically outlawed. Among the 16 non-EU nations in Europe, every single one has banned mail-in voting for those citizens who do not live abroad, and every single one also requires photo identification to obtain a mail-in ballot.

A very similar trend exists among OECD countries. Not including the United States, nearly half of the member states in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have banned mail-in voting unless the citizen lives abroad. Moreover, 30 percent of these countries require photo ID to attain a mail-in ballot and more than a few have outright outlawed mail-in voting.

A few OECD nations do allow limited mail-in voting, such as Japan and Poland. However, in order to vote by mail in these countries, one must be disabled and acquire documentation to confirm their inability to vote in-person.
Brazil, which is not a member state of the OECD but has a working relationship with the OECD bloc, has also completely outlawed mail-in voting.

There are several reasons why these countries have decided to severely restrict mail-in voting, foremost being that they have had direct experience with the trials and tribulations that are inherent to this lackadaisical method of casting ballots.
In 1975, France banned mail-in voting after a series of scandals demonstrated the vulnerability of sending ballots by mail. More recently, in 2005, the United Kingdom was rocked by allegations of widespread illegal mail-in voting after six councilors in Birmingham were convicted of organizing a “massive, systematic and organized” postal voting fraud campaign.
Closer to home, Mexico banned mail-in voting in 1991 after an abundance of evidence emerged that the long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party had relied on illegal mail-in voting to remain in power for decades.

The 2020 presidential election was undoubtedly tainted by widespread illegal mail-in voting. We know this because history shows that mail-in voting is rife with illegality but also because the voters have admitted to illegally (either wittingly or unwittingly) casting mail-in ballots in the 2020 election at a clip that almost certainly impacted the outcome.

For more details on how prevalent illegal mail-in voting was in the 2020 election, simply read The Heartland Institute’s latest policy study, “Who Really Won the 2020 Election? Measuring the Effect of Mail-in Voter Fraud in the Trump-Biden Race for the White House.”

So, why does this matter? Why should Americans care about mail-in voting? Because free and fair elections are the lynchpin of a flourishing nation. Because we cannot have domestic tranquility if half of the citizenry does not have confidence that elections are being run honestly. Because we probably cannot survive another highly disputed and controversial election, like we experienced in 2020.

Fortunately, there are several solutions that have been proven to prevent mass illegal mail-in voting both around the world and here at home.

First, state legislatures must reaffirm their constitutional duty of overseeing how elections are conducted. Second, states must encourage in-person voting with a photo ID, ideally as close to Election Day as possible. Third, states must impose prerequisites for mail-in voting, such as being disabled, living overseas, or serving abroad in the military. Fourth, states should enact guardrails to reduce illegal mail-in voting from occurring, including signature verification, or a witness or notary signature. Fifth, states must outlaw ballot harvesting and unattended ballot drop boxes while cleaning their voting rolls on an annual basis and removing deceased persons and those who no longer reside at the address listed. And, sixth, those who engage in illegal voting schemes must be held to account.

The clock is ticking. The 2024 election is mere months away. It is not too late, but states must act swiftly to ensure that the 2024 election is, indeed, as free and fair as possible.
Photo by Chris Phan. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Most%20Developed%20Countries%20Have%20Banned%20Mass%20Mail-in%20Voting.%20The%20United%20States%20Must%20Do%20the%20Same&url=https%3A%2F%2Fheartland.org%2Fopinion%2Fmost-developed-countries-have-banned-mass-mail-in-voting-the-united-states-must-do-the-same%2F][/url][url=https://heartland.org/opinion/most-developed-countries-have-banned-mass-mail-in-voting-the-united-states-must-do-the-same/]



Christopher Talgo
Chris Talgo is senior editor at The Heartland Institute and a research fellow for Heartland’s Socialism Research Center.

[hollodero]

(03-29-2024, 10:12 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are the Democrats really not working to subvert democracy into their favor?  I mean pulling out mail in voting for the 2020 election has all the earmarks of subversive action intended to gain an edge.

Well they probably gain an edge, but how does that alone make it "subversive"? Unless you allege wide-spread fraud happening by mail-in and the democrats being aware of that, of course, then it would be. If that is not the case - and i am not aware of any clear indication that it is - it's still just people using their vote.

I can vote per mail in my country as well, it is not exactly off the table in quite some countries. Of course, I can not get my absentee ballot without photo ID, so it's not like I do not see the point here. On the other hand, we vote on Sundays, hence allowing way more people to vote in person. Were elections held on a workday and often required standing in line for hours still, I'd guess countries would treat mail-in voting more similar to how the US treats it.

[Belsnickel]

(03-29-2024, 10:12 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are the Democrats really not working to subvert democracy into their favor?  I mean pulling out mail in voting for the 2020 election has all the earmarks of subversive action intended to gain an edge. I find it very interesting the only the Democratic party in the US felt the need to muddy electoral waters with mail in voting requiring no ID to gain said ballot of course, under the guise of pandemic safety of course, while the rest of the developed nations in the world seem to have taken mail in voting off the table as an option for the most part.

https://heartland.org/opinion/most-developed-countries-have-banned-mass-mail-in-voting-the-united-states-must-do-the-same/

So, here are my issues with the movement against mail-in voting: it doesn't just target mail-in voting. Let me explain. In Virginia, all in-person early and mail-in ballots are received and counted in the same place at the same time. Obviously, I don't know how many other states behave in this manner but I am willing to bet it is quite a few. So when "mail-in" ballots are targeted in Virginia the number is greatly inflated because many, if not most of those being claimed as mail-in ballots were cast in person prior to Election Day and that person had to verify their identity to cast that ballot.

We need to make it easier for those eligible to vote. Point blank. Election Day is on an inconvenient day for modern society. There are ersatz poll taxes in some places and unwieldy, burdensome policies surrounding it in others. Mail-in voting pre-pandemic is certainly an imperfect system, but it is not as prevalent as most would claim and it isn't as ripe for fraud as many think.

[*Nately120*]

(03-29-2024, 10:12 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are the Democrats really not working to subvert democracy into their favor?  I mean pulling out mail in voting for the 2020 election has all the earmarks of subversive action intended to gain an edge. I find it very interesting the only the Democratic party in the US felt the need to muddy electoral waters with mail in voting requiring no ID to gain said ballot of course, under the guise of pandemic safety of course, while the rest of the developed nations in the world seem to have taken mail in voting off the table as an option for the most part.

If voters can use mail in voting to vote for whichever candidate they choose, I don't see where the democrat advantage comes into play. I was under the impression that the reason mail in voting "favors" democrats is because the GOP was and is led by a guy who convinced a lot of his voters that they shouldn't use mail in voting. 

But voter ID is a bit of an antiquated issue or talking point now that so many people are convinced that people vote and then cheaters either push a button to change votes or just make up the numbers and don't count anything.  If you vote for Trump and give your ID and a blood sample and a DNA test and submit to a full cavity search so we can be 150% sure it's really YOU voting for Trump, what does it matter if that vote goes into the trash and "the computers" register it as 15 votes for Biden? Enough people now are convinced that elections are rigged by machines and algorithms, so old school ID and voter security laws won't be seen as effective enough as soon as the results don't fit what those same people expect.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-29-2024, 11:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here are my issues with the movement against mail-in voting: it doesn't just target mail-in voting. Let me explain. In Virginia, all in-person early and mail-in ballots are received and counted in the same place at the same time. Obviously, I don't know how many other states behave in this manner but I am willing to bet it is quite a few. So when "mail-in" ballots are targeted in Virginia the number is greatly inflated because many, if not most of those being claimed as mail-in ballots were cast in person prior to Election Day and that person had to verify their identity to cast that ballot.

We need to make it easier for those eligible to vote. Point blank. Election Day is on an inconvenient day for modern society. There are ersatz poll taxes in some places and unwieldy, burdensome policies surrounding it in others. Mail-in voting pre-pandemic is certainly an imperfect system, but it is not as prevalent as most would claim and it isn't as ripe for fraud as many think.

Purging rolls and requiring an ID is a great step toward ensuring that only those eligible are being allowed to vote, I've never understood all the objections to those items. Of course everyone who is eligible should have their opportunity to vote. Many, if not most States have an extended in-person early voting session to accommodate those who are otherwise engaged on election day. 

[Luvnit2]

The Democrats use Russia over and over again in an attempt to paint the GOP as i bed with them. Yet, it was proven it was HRC who used Russian propaganda to portray Trump as a Russian spy. Ludicrous, but they keep using Russia, in 2020, the group of 51 traitors said the Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation weeks before the election.

The other item Democrats use is it is hard to vote. Voting with a proper ID has never been easier. Yet, Democrats cry every year voters are suppressed which is BS. These same Democrats are trying to suppress Trump and RFK Jr. voters by throwing one in jail and keeping both off of the ballot.

I need a Democrat to help me understand how it is not voter suppression to attempt to stop a candidate by arresting him or removing him from the ballot. First, it was Trump, now Biden campaign attorneys are attempting to stop RFK Jr. from being a candidate in every state.

I have said it for years, if a Democrat accuses a republican of something, take a close look as they are the party guilty.

As far as the topic of credibility, one candidate is a friend of the police and flies into NY for the sole purpose of spending time with the family of a fallen police officer, one candidate is miles away and chooses to do a podcast and then a 25 million fundraiser with a bunch of billionaires and DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO CALL THE FAMILY OR HAVE HIS PRESS SECRETARY MENTION HIS NAME. IN FACT, KJP BLAMES GUNS AS THE ISSUE VERSUS A CAREER CRIMINAL WHO NYC DID NOT KEEP IN JAIL KILL HIM WITH A GUN NOT LEGALLY PURCHASED.

Presidents Obama, Clinton and Biden chose MONEY OVER ENPHATHY FOR NOT JUST THE FAMILY, BUT EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. WHERE IS THE MEDIA ON THE LEFT? SAME PLACE THEY ALWAYS ARE, USING DNC TALKING POINTS AND DEFENDING THEM.

[Luvnit2]

(03-29-2024, 12:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Purging rolls and requiring an ID is a great step toward ensuring that only those eligible are being allowed to vote, I've never understood all the objections to those items. Of course everyone who is eligible should have their opportunity to vote. Many, if not most States have an extended in-person early voting session to accommodate those who are otherwise engaged on election day. 

Simple, the more people on the rolls who are dead or moved or not legal voters allow the total vote count to not be exceeded.  It makes it much harder to cheat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2024, 09:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: Weird, I see that happening all the time.

Yup, because it happens all the time.

Quote:I find that to be a loaded example that does not represent my stance. And the same goes for the other examples you listed.

That seems to happen with some frequency.

Quote:So this might illustrate the difference of opinion most clearly. For one, I think you're right, there is a clear danger from the right that is unique. I don't think that what Trump did in respect to the elections, or in respect to thrive for a dictator-like reign in general, is comparable to things Abrams or Hillary or whoever important from the democrats stated or aims for. And I sure say so, loudly and clearly and time and again. I'm not advocating to let narratives full of false equivalencies and faulty parallels just stand uncommented to comfort those who make or follow these points. You, however, imho take it a step further. Eg by associating mentioning "bad guys" on the left with some historic parallel from the civil war that isn't all that similar. I would advocate to just keep it real, to keep it real as you'd bold it, that's all. And part of that is, of course, claiming that the Trump-infested GOP is indeed worse in many respects, including highly important ones. However, I don't find it to be dangerous or unwise to mention (or "admit" as you put it) all the things that are (often subjectively, at times more objectively) wrong with the left and I feel it makes my stances more credible, not less effective. You claim it is "not the issue" multiple times, reaction to BLM is not the issue, who's worse is "of no consequence" etc, but of course for people these are issues and I find it highly convenient to claim "for the good of the country they better not be". That will persuade no one and imho gets blatantly close to giving all things liberal a wide reaching carte blanche on the sole basis that Trump is worse and more dangerous. Imho, this attitude contributes quite a lot to him not getting less popular.

I am aware that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue, so I will leave it be.

It honestly amazes me that you're the only left leaning poster here who genuinely understands these points.  You don't have to agree with a position to see the point being made.  You don't have to agree with the conclusion to see the argument has some merit.  You are also the only one who listens and responds to points that are actually made.  The consistent frustration of having to reexplain a position only to have it misinterpreted (deliberately?) again and again can be rather tiresome.

I have significant issues with the hyperbole, and validity of the posts of several right leaning posters here  But it is currently dwarfed by this tendency of the left leaning ones to put words in your mouth, argue against points you never made, ignore the points you do make and reply with the same circuitous argument.  Honestly, if people could at least try and follow the example of yourself and Bel for example a lot more constructive conversation would be had here.  And maybe Stewy would go back to normal.

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 09:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: Weird, I see that happening all the time.

I see from the thread on "Derogatory names" that there are way more liberals name calling and condescending than I suspected.
You were right about that.  I'll consider examples of the "disagree and you're Trump" type if you throw a couple my way some time.
I'm listening.  But example free discussions of such phenomena, I find, are often as much a problem as the thing itself in this forum.

(03-29-2024, 09:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: So both sides do it? Black people can massacre too?

I find that to be a loaded example that does not represent my stance. And the same goes for the other examples you listed.

Yow. That and the others weren't supposed to "represent [your] stance."  They're something you don't do.

I was trying to illustrate how people approach issues like history without any analytic distance. That's not you.
That's why I said you don't critique US politics because you "hate" us, and why I said people react to critiques 
"You and I make," thinking we are only leveraging "who's worse" to set up denunciation.  Neither of us does that.

My intent was to CONTRAST your stance (and mine) with what you say does NOT represent your stance (or mine). 

(03-29-2024, 09:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: So this might illustrate the difference of opinion most clearly. For one, I think you're right, there is a clear danger from the right that is unique. I don't think that what Trump did in respect to the elections, or in respect to thrive for a dictator-like reign in general, is comparable to things Abrams or Hillary or whoever important from the democrats stated or aims for. And I sure say so, loudly and clearly and time and again. I'm not advocating to let narratives full of false equivalencies and faulty parallels just stand uncommented to comfort those who make or follow these points. You, however, imho take it a step further. Eg by associating mentioning "bad guys" on the left with some historic parallel from the civil war that isn't all that similar.

I still think you missed my point here, though apparently owing to my own negligence. The Civil War examples were meant to illustrate people receiving a discussion about what happened, what existed, and what can still affect present politics, as a personal attack. e.g., a claim that "white people are worse" or some such.  Hence the impulse to add "black people did it too." Imagine a bunch of historians at the University of Georgia or Oxford University or the University of Tokyo discussing some newly discovered or interpreted fact of US slavery. I can't imagine anyone in the conversation pausing to say "Hold on folks; remember that blacks had slaves too."

I was considering how that impulse DOES manifest itself in conversations in the U.S., including in this forum. It never occurred to me that you were/are doing something similar when you add to a Trump critique some comment like "Dems have their problems too." As you say above, you've never hedged about the "clear danger."  For which I am thankful. Because of that, "Dems have their problems too" is not some false equivalence version of "Blacks had slaves too." My concern was how others might expand caution and balance heard therein into exoneration.

But in retrospect I think maybe I wasn't clear enough about that precisely because it never occurred to me your comments were defending against non-existent attacks, or or that you would think I was accusing you of such. So my apologies if I flubbed that.

(03-29-2024, 09:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: I would advocate to just keep it real, to keep it real as you'd bold it, that's all. And part of that is, of course, claiming that the Trump-infested GOP is indeed worse in many respects, including highly important ones. However, I don't find it to be dangerous or unwise to mention (or "admit" as you put it) all the things that are (often subjectively, at times more objectively) wrong with the left and I feel it makes my stances more credible, not less effective. You claim it is "not the issue" multiple times, reaction to BLM is not the issue, who's worse is "of no consequence" etc, but of course for people these are issues and I find it highly convenient to claim "for the good of the country they better not be". That will persuade no one and imho gets blatantly close to giving all things liberal a wide reaching carte blanche on the sole basis that Trump is worse and more dangerous. Imho, this attitude contributes quite a lot to him not getting less popular.

I am aware that we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue, so I will leave it be.

LOL ok. At least we are clear about the differences.  I would put it this way: I'm more concerned about constant false equivalence.

How that gets "heard." That has to be contested more front and center in public debates, from my view.

So yes, in terms of these forum debates, I'm not interested in leveraging "who's worse" on some score card. 
I'm concerned about the real consequences of misinformation, anti-democratic policies, and the like.

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have significant issues with the hyperbole, and validity of the posts of several right leaning posters here  But it is currently dwarfed by this tendency of the left leaning ones to put words in your mouth, argue against points you never made, ignore the points you do make and reply with the same circuitous argument.  Honestly, if people could at least try and follow the example of yourself and Bel for example a lot more constructive conversation would be had here. 

Yeah, Bels and Hollo are good models.

But only for the "left-leaning"?

Could'nt you learn something from them?