Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2024, 05:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, Bels and Hollo are good models.

But only for the "left-leaning"?

Could'nt you learn something from them?

You damned sure could, Mayor McPompous.

[Dill]

(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/

They don't seem to be.  But I appreciate the question. Much of the mail-in ballot part has been well answered.

Since 1865 there has been quite a bit of back and forth between liberals and conservatives on voting rights and voting laws.

Let's just talk about what's happened since 1965, when the Voting Rights Act went into force.

Seems to me the Dems are always trying to expand voting rights and the Repubs are always trying to restrict them, often under the guise of "election integrity."

Voter ID laws were part of the latter. In Texas for example, a handgun license counts, but not a college ID, making it hard for out of staters ("liberal" college students) residing in Texas to vote there. In many "deep South" states people who'd voted for decades suddenly ran into problems when they were required to have an ID and then a birth certificate to get that ID. My mother-in-law, born on the Flathead Reservation, had no birth certificate. Many in her generation, born on homesteads, did not. Same for many rural (Black) southerners from that era.

As someone who used to live on an Indian reservation, I can react to the ND voter ID requirement that made "residential address" necessary. In Crow Agency, where I lived, there were no street names or addresses. I don't recall them in any reservation town in Southeastern MT, where Native Americans mostly voted Dem--as in North Dakota.  Anyway, the ND law would have sliced off a fraction of Dem votes--way more damage than repaired by an occasional fraudulent vote. And it was prompted by a Dem senate win by a margin of 3,000 votes. Many voter id laws arise like this, to gain an advantage by solving a non-existent fraud problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/north-dakota-voter-identification-registration.html

A North Carolina ID law was voided as discriminatory when Dems controlled their Supreme Court, then restored when GOP were in the majority.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/north-carolina-high-court-rejects-voter-identification-law-electoral-map-2022-12-16/

When Shelby vs Holder eviscerated the Voting Rights Act in 2013, it was followed by a wave of changes in voter laws and redistricting for GOP advantage.
https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map.

I could continue discussing how, for the 2020 elections, many Republican states (e.g., Texas) suddenly reduced the number of sites for ballot drop off boxes. 
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/13/texas-election-ballot-drop-off/  Georgia did that recently too. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/27/1112487312/georgia-voting-law-ballot-drop-box-access.

So to conclude--I think that creating lists of fake electors and sending crowd to the Capitol to menace Mike Pence is definitely working to subvert democracy,
but it's not clear to me how expanding voting access does that.

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 06:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Yeah, Bels and Hollo are good models.
But only for the "left-leaning"?
Could'nt you learn something from them?

You damned sure could, Mayor McPompous.

Not a direct answer. You are saying you couldn't? Don't need to?

Nothing for you to learn about "constructive conversations"?

[SunsetBengal]

(03-29-2024, 07:12 PM)Dill Wrote: They don't seem to be.  But I appreciate the question. Much of the mail-in ballot part has been well answered.

Since 1865 there has been quite a bit of back and forth between liberals and conservatives on voting rights and voting laws.

Let's just talk about what's happened since 1965, when the Voting Rights Act went into force.

Seems to me the Dems are always trying to expand voting rights and the Repubs are always trying to restrict them, often under the guise of "election integrity."

Voter ID laws were part of the latter. In Texas for example, a handgun license counts, but not a college ID, making it hard for out of staters ("liberal" college students) residing in Texas to vote there. In many "deep South" states people who'd voted for decades suddenly ran into problems when they were required to have an ID and then a birth certificate to get that ID. My mother-in-law, born on the Flathead Reservation, had no birth certificate. Many in her generation, born on homesteads, did not. Same for many rural (Black) southerners from that era.

As someone who used to live on an Indian reservation, I can react to the ND voter ID requirement that made "residential address" necessary. In Crow Agency, where I lived, there were no street names or addresses. I don't recall them in any reservation town in Southeastern MT, where Native Americans mostly voted Dem--as in North Dakota.  Anyway, the ND law would have sliced off a fraction of Dem votes--way more damage than repaired by an occasional fraudulent vote. And it was prompted by a Dem senate win by a margin of 3,000 votes. Many voter id laws arise like this, to gain an advantage by solving a non-existent fraud problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/north-dakota-voter-identification-registration.html

A North Carolina ID law was voided as discriminatory when Dems controlled their Supreme Court, then restored when GOP were in the majority.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/north-carolina-high-court-rejects-voter-identification-law-electoral-map-2022-12-16/

When Shelby vs Holder eviscerated the Voting Rights Act in 2013, it was followed by a wave of changes in voter laws and redistricting for GOP advantage.
https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map.

I could continue discussing how, for the 2020 elections, many Republican states (e.g., Texas) suddenly reduced the number of sites for ballot drop off boxes. 
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/13/texas-election-ballot-drop-off/  Georgia did that recently too. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/27/1112487312/georgia-voting-law-ballot-drop-box-access.

So to conclude--I think that creating lists of fake electors and sending crowd to the Capitol to menace Mike Pence is definitely working to subvert democracy,
but it's not clear to me how expanding voting access does that.

So rather than suggesting measures to ensure that folks on the reservation are able to get their fair say, you'll just go with the blanket "solution" of no ID required that allows for all sorts of hijinx and chicanery to fall upon the masses?  Got it. 

Edit: Let's also not forget that if someone needs an ID, and knows that they need an ID in order to vote, you do realize that they have all of the other days of the year to sort that out, right?

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 07:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So rather than suggesting measures to ensure that folks on the reservation are able to get their fair say, you'll just go with the blanket "solution" of no ID required that allows all sorts of hijinx and chicanery to fall upon the masses?  Got it. 

Well, Sunset, I need to see some evidence of "hijinx and chicanery," not just claims there must be.

Without that evidence, we are back to Chinese paper, Italian satellites, and Venezuelan voting machines.

I think folks on the ND reservations were getting their fair say until some people realized the IDs could have votes from an impending election.

(By the way, I was in Crow Agency last summer and noticed they do have street signs and street names now.
Though I still didn't see numbers on every house.)

PS I'm reading your linked Heartland Institute Policy Brief on who REALLY won the 2020 election.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2024, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Not a direct answer. You are saying you couldn't? Don't need to?

Nothing for you to learn about "constructive conversations"?

Yes, I could at least in regard to this forum.  But, as I've pointed out before, I like to vent here a bit, so calling out the far left idiocy here is cathartic for me.  


So, I've answered.  Do you think you could learn?  Need to?

[Belsnickel]

(03-29-2024, 07:29 PM)Dill Wrote: PS I'm reading your linked Heartland Institute Policy Brief on who REALLY won the 2020 election.

Yeah, I read it and then looked at the polling data. The crosstabs don't really jive with the premise of the article. They had 1,085 respondents with 30% saying they had voted by mail-in or absentee. Their figures should, in theory, give a 3% MOE but the actual returns in 2020 were 46% mail-in or absentee so their findings are definitely off. Also, the claimed fraudulent activity was pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans meaning that there would not likely be a measurable effect.

But none of that makes for a good opinion piece from a partisan think tank, so yeah.

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 07:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I could at least in regard to this forum.  But, as I've pointed out before, I like to vent here a bit, so calling out the far left idiocy here is cathartic for me.  

So, I've answered.  Do you think you could learn?  Need to?

Another exception for yourself. Yes, you've answered.

My answer: Hey I could always learn from those guys. No "exceptions."

In my defense, though, I'd like to see how they respond respond to someone calling
them liars, hypocrites, racists and Hamas supporters--"only because its true."

Followed by the suggestion it is they who need to learn how to make conversation "constructive."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2024, 07:44 PM)Dill Wrote: In my defense, though, I'd like to see how they respond respond to someone calling
them liars, hypocrites, racists and Hamas supporters--"only because its true."

I guess we'll find out when they lie, engage in hypocrisy or racism, or support Hamas.  I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 07:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I read it and then looked at the polling data. The crosstabs don't really jive with the premise of the article. They had 1,085 respondents with 30% saying they had voted by mail-in or absentee. Their figures should, in theory, give a 3% MOE but the actual returns in 2020 were 46% mail-in or absentee so their findings are definitely off. Also, the claimed fraudulent activity was pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans meaning that there would not likely be a measurable effect.

But none of that makes for a good opinion piece from a partisan think tank, so yeah.

Yes, I think the primary goal was to create an appearance of "running data" in scientific sounding
scenarios, to get a succession of precise sounding "what if" percentages to finally explain,
indirectly, why Trump only appeared to lose.

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 07:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I guess we'll find out when they lie, engage in hypocrisy or racism, or support Hamas.  I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I don't engage in any of that and I still "found out." 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-29-2024, 07:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, Sunset, I need to see some evidence of "hijinx and chicanery," not just claims there must be.

Without that evidence, we are back to Chinese paper, Italian satellites, and Venezuelan voting machines.

I think folks on the ND reservations were getting their fair say until some people realized the IDs could have votes from an impending election.

(By the way, I was in Crow Agency last summer and noticed they do have street signs and street names now.
Though I still didn't see numbers on every house.)

PS I'm reading your linked Heartland Institute Policy Brief on who REALLY won the 2020 election.

If the US is supposedly the "world leader" in terms "leader of the free world", then why would the Democratic party want to bring in voting by mail when most of the developed nations in the world have forbidden it?  This is a situation where the possible negative circumstances are too numerous to say "show me one", but the overwhelming decisions of other developed nations should tell the story.  They all forbid mail voting for a reason, and I suspect that reason to be it allows for fraud.

Now, it's interesting that you chose earlier to only address my issue that voter ID should be a requirement, yet you never said a peep about purging the voter rolls of inactive voters.

[Belsnickel]

(03-29-2024, 08:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Now, it's interesting that you chose earlier to only address my issue that voter ID should be a requirement, yet you never said a peep about purging the voter rolls of inactive voters.

I can't speak for Dill, but I was going to respond to that and forgot about it (thanks ADHD!) so I will now. No. Purging voter roles of inactive voters should not be a thing. Every adult should be registered to vote. There should be compulsory voter registration. Purging voter roles is 100% anti-democratic and a voter suppression tactic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2024, 07:55 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't engage in any of that and I still "found out." 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, champ.  

[JustWinBaby]

(03-29-2024, 08:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  Purging voter roles is 100% anti-democratic and a voter suppression tactic.

How dare they stop dead people from voting!

[Dill]

(03-29-2024, 08:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If the US is supposedly the "world leader" in terms "leader of the free world", then why would the Democratic party want to bring in voting by mail when most of the developed nations in the world have forbidden it?  This is a situation where the possible negative circumstances are too numerous to say "show me one", but the overwhelming decisions of other developed nations should tell the story.  They all forbid mail voting for a reason, and I suspect that reason to be it allows for fraud.

Now, it's interesting that you chose earlier to only address my issue that voter ID should be a requirement, yet you never said a peep about purging the voter rolls of inactive voters.

Couple things, then--

1. Voting by mail is no biggie.  https://www.witf.org/2022/12/09/what-other-countries-offer-no-excuse-mail-in-voting-2/
Mail in voter is fraud just another manufactured problem. If nations have forbidden mail in voting because of fraud problems, then that will be part of the historical record somewhere. And it will be covered and analyzed by organizations like this: https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/what-we-do.

GB, Canada, Switzerland--seems to be a thing in solid democracies with hundreds of years of tradition. Plus Germany and Poland. That tells a story for sure. No problem. In many countries, registration is done automatically, but not the U.S.  Different countries have different circumstances. Wide distances and frequent travel have been a factor in the history of U.S. mail in voting (which began with the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War). It always surged in war time, when politicians wanted soldiers votes.  The (historically) sudden juxtaposition with unproven fraud and 2020 seems a bit too timely.

2. Purging voter roles: there needs to be a balance of harm with such policies--
is more harm prevented than created if a SINGLE COUNTY purges a thousand eligible voters because of two "dead" voters in the ENTIRE STATE one year?

I suspect the people pushing "purge" policies know very well what the balance is in their state, and what percentage of what voter demographic will most likely be shaved off. Just another of the many "innovations" we have seen over the last three decades in the name of "election integrity." 

Eligible voters are being swept up in conservative activists' efforts to purge voter rolls
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eligible-voters-swept-up-conservative-activists-purge-voter-rolls/
In Seven States, Removing Voters from the Rolls Just Got Easier
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/in-seven-states-removing-voters-from-the-rolls-just-got-easier/
"Use It or Lose It": The Problem of Purges from the Registration Rolls of Voters Who Don't Vote Regularly
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-rights/-use-it-or-lose-it---the-problem-of-purges-from-the-registration0/
With the 2020 elections looming, there are mounting concerns about the techniques some states may use to try to tailor the electorate and achieve their preferred political outcomes. One such technique is purging voters from the rolls for flimsy reasons. State election officials do, of course, have the obligation to try to keep voter registration records up to date by canceling registrations of people who have died, are imprisoned, have moved to another state, or become legally incompetent. But a minority of states go further and engage in a practice that ought to be seen as glaringly unconstitutional—purging people from the rolls solely because they have skipped voting in several consecutive elections and they have not responded to a letter asking them to confirm where they live. 

This practice results in the deletion of hundreds of thousands of registrants each year. Very often, those people get energized to vote in a given election but find when they show up at the polls that they are no longer registered and cannot cast a ballot.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I guess ballot harvesting is not a term you are familiar with?

[*pally*]

(03-30-2024, 03:56 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess ballot harvesting is not a term you are familiar with?

It is a familiar and often abused term….so why don’t you give us your definition of it so we know what actions you are referencing.

[Belsnickel]

(03-29-2024, 09:55 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How dare they stop dead people from voting!

That's not what those policies are for.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2024, 03:56 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess ballot harvesting is not a term you are familiar with?

PA Senate republicans know what it is!

https://www.pasenategop.com/news/senate-votes-to-ban-unsecured-ballot-drop-boxes-and-private-funding-of-election-operations/

Quote:Senate Votes to Ban Unsecured Ballot Drop Boxes and Private Funding of Election Operations

Posted on April 13, 2022


HARRISBURG – In a strong step forward to safeguard the integrity of Pennsylvania’s elections, the Senate approved two bills today that would prevent the future use of unsecured ballot drop boxes and ban private money to fund election operations.
Senate Bill 1200 – sponsored by Senators Cris Dush (R-Jefferson), Ryan P. Aument (R-Lancaster), Jake Corman (R-Centre) and Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland) – would require mail-in ballots that are not returned in the mail to be returned only to the County Board of Elections office, effectively eliminating drop boxes in Pennsylvania. 


Drop boxes were permitted by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in 2020, despite the fact that they were never authorized or intended by the General Assembly through the legislative process. Since that time, numerous examples of drop boxes being misused have been discovered throughout the state, including:

• • Video evidence from Lehigh County showing ballot harvesting in the 2021 General Election.
  • Video evidence from Lackawanna County showing a man allegedly harvesting multiple ballots into a drop box during the 2021 Primary Election.
  • Video evidence from Montgomery County showing ballot harvesting in the 2021 General Election.
  • Memorandum from Lehigh County explaining how detectives reviewed video from four different drop boxes in the county and determined there were overvotes at each of the locations.
  • Testimony from a Luzerne County Judge of Elections indicating an individual admitting to repeatedly harvesting ballots at a drop box, not realizing it was even illegal.
    

“Drop boxes are the least secure way to vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – period,” said Dush. “Because drop boxes were written into law by the courts, the Senate is now taking steps to mitigate the negative effects of that action and restore the integrity of our elections.”


With many other, more secure ways available for Pennsylvanians to vote, the elimination of these unsecured ballot drop boxes will not negatively impact voter access. 
There are over 10,000 publicly available locations across the Commonwealth that voters can use to return their ballots, the Senators said.


“Eliminating drop boxes that evidence shows are breeding grounds for suspicious activity will go a long way toward restoring the public’s confidence in our elections and results,” said Aument. “Our bill will require all ballots be returned to a single central location in each county to streamline the process, prevent tampering, and preserve a strict chain of custody.”


“We have a Constitutional duty to safeguard our election process so every voter knows the results are fair and accurate. When voters don’t believe the process is impartial, then the entire system breaks down,” Senate President Pro Tempore Corman said. “Getting private money out of our elections and eliminating the least secure method of voting should give all voters more faith in our election system.”


“The Pennsylvania Senate took two significant steps this week towards helping to restore election integrity in our Commonwealth’s voting system by eliminating the use of drop boxes and preventing third party funding from influencing elections in Pennsylvania. While other states may use drop boxes, Pennsylvania’s drop boxes have no statutory parameters as they were established by our Commonwealth’s Supreme Court without legislative approval,” said Senate Majority Leader Ward. “It was never the intent of the legislature to establish rogue voting facilities on public street corners with pop-up tents, or in cars, trucks, and vans and without Board of Elections oversight while funded by third parties. The passage of these bills in the House and signature from the governor making them law is a start towards restoring faith in free and fair elections in Pennsylvania.”

Senate Bill 982 – sponsored by Senators Lisa Baker (R-Luzerne) and Kristin Phillips-Hill (R-York) – would ban any state employee or county from accepting money from outside groups to pay for the administration of elections in Pennsylvania. The bill was approved by a 37-12 margin with bipartisan support.


The legislation was created in response to the use of grant money from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) during the 2020 Election. Correspondence between CTCL officials, the Wolf Administration and county officials demonstrates that funding was intentionally directed predominantly to counties that favor Democrats.


Democrat-leaning counties were selectively invited to apply for the grants before Republican-leaning counties were even made aware of the funding. Philadelphia and its surrounding counties received more than $18 million from CTCL in the 2020 Election, while other counties received significantly less.


For example, Philadelphia received $8.83 per voter in CTCL funding in 2020.  On the other side of the state, Venango County, with a Republican voter registration advantage, received only $.64 per voter in CTCL funding in 2020.


“Our legislation offers a direct, straight-forward clarification to the Pennsylvania Election Code,” Baker said.  “Senate Bill 982 simply states what all of us understood to be fact – government should pay for elections.  Voters, taxpayers and citizens alike deserve the most fair and equitable election system.  It should be uniform from one county to the next regardless of size, demographics, or wealth.”


“After witnessing an incredible investment from a group whose donors are not 100% known in a recent election, we must reaffirm that our election system is above reproach,” Phillips-Hill said. “Every voter should have trust in the system, and the administration of our election system should be free of partisan influence from dark money groups.”

Both bills were sent to the House of Representatives for consideration.

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/13/two-pennsylvania-staffers-fired-over-alleged-illegal-ballot-harvesting-operation-report/

Quote:Two Pennsylvania GOP staffers fired over alleged illegal "ballot harvesting" operation: report

GOP group says it was just trying to help but voters say they never signed off for GOP to collect their ballots

By JON SKOLNIK
Staff Writer
PUBLISHED MAY 13, 2022 12:30PM (EDT)

Apair of Pennsylvania GOP staffers were fired after allegedly orchestrating a potential "ballot harvesting" scheme, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.


C.J. Parker, 24, and Shamus O'Donnell, 27, and were both sacked after allegedly sending dozens of ballots to a P.O. box associated with a Republican political action committee known as the Republican Registration Coalition. The PAC's chairman, Billy Lanzilotti, told the Inquirer that he had intended to hand deliver the ballots to voters himself. 


"I didn't do anything that to my understanding was against the law," Lanzilotti told the outlet, arguing that he was trying to help voters. 
"There's been a number of problems with the post office lately," he added. "Checks are being stolen out of the mail. They like it this way because I'm someone they trust."


RELATED: "He's violated federal law": Ex-Trump aide voted in two different states — but won't face charges


Ballot harvesting, which involves having a third-party collect or distribute ballots on behalf of voters, is strictly banned in Pennsylvania except to assist voters with disabilities. State law mandates that voters fill out and deliver their ballots themselves unless they've provided authorization for someone else to perform both tasks for them.


According to the Inquirer, only one of the voters whose ballots were collected by the Republican Registration Coalition had actually received their ballot. Many of the voters did not reportedly remember signing off on having their ballots collected or distributed by the PAC. The Inquirer also reported that there is no indication that Lanzilotti attempted to tamper with the ballots in question.

O'Donnell's attorney, Matt Wolfe, said that his client had "no knowledge of the mail ballot applications and what Billy Lanzilotti was doing," noting that O'Donnell simply served as the PAC's treasurer.


Republican state Rep. Seth Grove, chairman of the House State Government Committee, said that the incident "is nothing more than ballot harvesting."


"If Gov. Tom Wolf had not vetoed the Voting Rights Protection Act without reading it, this alleged ballot harvesting scheme would not have happened," he added. 

The incident is just the latest in a series of GOP-related voting scandals in recent months. Back in April, two Republican voters from Florida's famed retirement community, The Villages, admitted to filing ballots in two different states. 


Meanwhile, Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, is under a state investigation for alleged voter fraud in North Carolina. Meadows reportedly registered to vote in what has been called a "dive trailer" in rural North Carolina, but there's no indication that he's spent a single night there, The New Yorker reported.


RELATED: Multiple residents from Florida's Trump-loving "The Villages" arrested for voter fraud