Washington Post Editorial About Trump

Bad for Republicans because it will limit their ability to suppress, disenfranchise, and intimidate Democratic voters. It's true they overcame a lot of obstacles and now Republicans are putting even more obstacles in the way. Restricting vote by mail, limiting early voting days and times, closing polling places in Democratic strongholds all of which will lead to more people voting in person on election day creating long lines of people waiting to vote and they've even made it illegal to hand out water to those waiting in long lines. They do because many of those laws very directly targets groups most likely to vote for Democrats. These laws do in fact target Democratic voting groups. So the fraud doesn't happen but reducing the availability of those drop boxes does create an impediment to voting. Because it creates an unnecessary impediment to voting. Originally Posted by billthecat46

BillTheCat,

As a supporter of Democratic politicians, there are two reasons why you'd have a problem with these election laws and why you'd believe they'd give Republicans a leg up. Either

A. you believe the Democratic constituencies, like millenials, single mothers, blacks, and liberals are too lazy or too stupid to vote unless voting is made as easy as possible, or

B. you believe Democrats cheat on a massive scale and the laws make it more difficult for Democrats to cheat.

I reject "A" and I reject "B". They both border on ridiculous. I don't understand why you have such a low opinion of your fellow Democrats.

Bush won every re-count! Even with the Miami area suppressing bags of votes by the Military Originally Posted by winn dixie

If the United States Supreme Court had never intervened and if a recount had been conducted in accordance with the instructions of the Florida Supreme Court, Bush still would have won:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-3cef5785d2c3/

As for voting legislation, widespread voter fraud has never been nor ever will be an issue, but republicans want as few people to actually vote as possible because they believe that works to their advantage. So all those state laws designed to increase difficulty in voting have zero to do with making votes more secure (since they already are) and everything to with decreasing the number of votes (which they believe secures their wins). Originally Posted by NoirMan

Two questions,

1. Don't Democrats do what they can to game the system? For example, when they support immigration of and citizenship for undocumented aliens? This is contrary to the best interests of one of their largest constituencies, organized labor. But in the long term may favor the Democratic Party, if you believe undocumented aliens once naturalized are more like to be Democrats.

2. I believe the recent election laws passed by Republican legislatures are more a product of paranoia about election fraud than an attempt to disenfranchise Democrats. However, for the sake of argument, say you're right about their motivations. Are these election laws backfiring on Republicans and firing up the Democratic base?

Since they believe that the 2020 election was stolen then it follows that they will feel any action is justified to steal the election in 2024 Originally Posted by billthecat46

UH, you do realize that Democrats believed that both Bush and Trump stole their election and Democrats did EVERYTHING in their power, whether legal or not to make sure ( in their minds ) that it never happened again and Covid became that path for Democrats.


The reason, a very good reason if you believe in Federalism, Democrats usually don't since they control fewer states, that Republicans don't support the bills you mentioned is because they strip powers given by the Constitution to the states with limited exceptions.


Since there is nothing in the Constitution about days and times you can vote, these decisions are left up to states. If those acts you list were ever passed, they would likely be struck down by the SC.


And as I have stated and asked many times, how do laws passed that in effect holds all voters to the same standards, don't discriminate against anybody in particular, become racist? Are there not poor Whites who have problems with transportation and other issues? Unless a state law is crafted and the words say White, Black and Brown, you are hereby in a different category than White people, you are blowing smoke just like the tired old "systemic racism" in a country that has elected a Black man to the Presidency, multiple positions in government and private enterprise.


These "systemic racism" arguments are no different that what the Democrats use on EVERY argument because they think it works for them.

That's a pretty sad attempt at bothsiderism since both sides don't. Both Gore and Clinton conceded the election, unlike the former guy. Neither held numerous 'Stop the Steal' rallies, unlike the former guy. Neither fomented an insurrection, unlike the former guy. Democratic leadership did not refuse to acknowledge that Bush and the former guy were the president elect, unlike many in a position of leadership in the Republican party after Biden was elected. And you won't find any polls showing that 2/3rds of Democrats believe that Clinton was the legitimate president in 2016, unlike Republicans in 2020. Originally Posted by billthecat46

Once again, I'm confronted with not knowing if you are merely ignorant of the past or know the past, don't care and will pass on false information to further your false narrative.


Fact is, you would know this if you watched Fox News and not the entirety of MSM who didn't report this. When it came time to confirm electors for Bush and Trump, the Democrats took to the floor of the House where this is conducted, stood up and opposed confirmation of certain electors hopping to stop the seating of both men.


While different things happened After all these situations, the fact of the matter is, that Democrats tried to stop the confirmation of two Republican Presidents and Democrats like yourself, for what ever reason, want to keep promoting the false narrative ( kinda like Trump, huh? ). Why is that?



And before you go back to the so called insurrection, which BTW, nobody has been charged with, let's concentrate for purposes of this issue, 'resisting the confirmation of electors which you suggest was only done by Republicans". I will acknowledge that there were different outcomes. Doesn't change the fact that what I highlighted in red was false information.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/o...ral-votes.html

As Republicans in Congress prepare to formally contest the outcome of the 2020 presidential election on Wednesday, many of them have cited precedent for their effort: similar complaints lodged by Democrats in other presidential elections. After Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016, for instance, Democrats in Congress used the formal counting of electoral votes as an opportunity to challenge election results

The act also requires broad political consensus to decline to count electoral votes. It instructs that on Jan. 6 after a presidential election, the president of the Senate (typically the vice president) presides over a session of the two chambers. If a member of Congress wishes to object to counting a state’s electoral votes, a member of the House and a member of the Senate must sign a written objection. The chambers separate for up to two hours of debate. If majorities of both chambers agree to the objection, the objection stands. If not, the votes are counted.



Few objections were filed in accordance with the Electoral Count Act in the 20th century. But starting with George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats contested election results after every Republican win.




.

So the question becomes, "did you know this but didn't care and provided false information" or did you just not realize you were stating false information?

If the United States Supreme Court had never intervened and if a recount had been conducted in accordance with the instructions of the Florida Supreme Court, Bush still would have won:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-3cef5785d2c3/ Originally Posted by Tiny

It's kinda funny isn't Tiny that Democrats will "never accept that" and are perfectly fine continuing the false narrative they put forth but are horrified that Trump/ Republicans might do the very same thing in promoting an outcome, they disagree with.


Here we are in 2021 and so many people still believe that Democrats and Republicans don't try to play this game the same way. The idea that Democrats are far superior and therefore deserve a different "look", is funny and sad at the same time.


Now one can continue with "the big lie" ( the 2020 election ) in the face of Biden saying that the border is closed, it isn't, a very big lie indeed, and that no military commanders ever told Biden not to remove those 2500 troops and close Bagram, another very big lie but I guess when a Democrat President lies, that is some how different than a Republican President lying.


"I'm Joe Biden and I'm running as a moderate so that the crazy Bernie Sanders doesn't get elected". A big lie and a truth combined in the same sentence. Now that Joe has lied about being a moderate, he is perfectly willing to install the very measures he warned us against if Sanders had been elected.


Lies don't get much bigger than that but lets settle on "they all lie at one time or another ".

Two questions,

1. Don't Democrats do what they can to game the system? For example, when they support immigration of and citizenship for undocumented aliens? This is contrary to the best interests of one of their largest constituencies, organized labor. But in the long term may favor the Democratic Party, if you believe undocumented aliens once naturalized are more like to be Democrats.

2. I believe the recent election laws passed by Republican legislatures are more a product of paranoia about election fraud than an attempt to disenfranchise Democrats. However, for the sake of argument, say you're right about their motivations. Are these election laws backfiring on Republicans and firing up the Democratic base? Originally Posted by Tiny

Firstly I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know better than what you’re writing and the questions are academic rather than serious. I’ll pretend that you understand that republicans want fewer voters overall hence the laws intended to make voting less convenient.

That said, a simple question, who benefits when voting is made more convenient , simpler and more available? According to HF there’s no such thing as disparate impact so the answer has to be “both parties”. If that’s the case then why would republicans, who would have more voters want to limit voting? Could there be some sensible reason? Your answer is that they are paranoid about voting irregularities that don’t and have never existed. Hell the times it did exist was cheating by republicans (ie the North Carolina congressional race they got caught cheating and the Florida race they cheated in by using a false candidate). Your belief is that republicans in every state fear non-existent voter fraud to the extent they need to

1) reduce voting hours
2) manipulate voting locations
3) use specific IDs but eliminating others

3 simple examples. How do any of these make voting have less “fraud”.

Explain how Fewer voting hours cuts fraud
Explain your fewer voting days cuts fraud
Explain how fewer voting locations cuts fraud
Explain how allowing gun licenses to be a proper ID but a student ID is improper cuts fraud.

If you believe these measures are not designed to advantage one voter group over another then I’d love to read a legitimate explanation for how fraud is reduced by these measures but is equally designed to affect both parties.

And then you make the kinda argument the loons make. No one has said illegals should be voting. In fact, they can’t. Only US citizens can vote and no matter how many illegals come into the country they still can’t vote. To argue otherwise is dishonest. Which is why I know you know better.

Will the Republican voting laws backfire, we will see. Unfortunately they will still be law and they are designed to retain power for a shrinking political group. Maybe there will be a swing but like everything the damage gets done then the over correction generally is worse.

At least you’re honest enough to have stated from the beginning that mass voter fraud was a big lie and that Trump lost. Some still pretend like hedging is a legitimate argumentative strategy. I love things like “I never said it was true but I wanted to see it play out” and “mass voter fraud could exist let’s see the evidence” or the best one “I never said there was mass voter fraud” all while not ever saying there was no mass voter fraud. Nothing’s worse than a hedger.

Will the Republican voting laws backfire, we will see. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Yeah. They came out and voted in droves, along with the independents to get rid of trump. It was trumps actions after he lost which was intent on trying to steal the election, along with his sycophants Hawley and Cruz who refused to just tell their supporters Biden Won.


You mean like Democrats did against Bush and Trump, refusing to tell their membership that like it or not, Bush and Trump had won those elections but no, people like Maxine Waters and others, just like Cruz and Hawley, took to the floor and tried to stop the confirmation of electors, just as the Constitution provides. They wouldn't have allowed those people to do that if the Constitution said they couldn't. Watch as Joe Biden, VP presiding over the confirmation process, tells Maxine Waters to sit down and shut the fuck up because she has no Senate support in her objection to confirming Republican electors.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvc4Ht3c2dk


Perpetuating the Big Lie is a mainstay of the Republicans


And as you have just proven to all of us, lying about what happened is not limited to one party.


at this point since there are fewer Republicans who will come out and be honest than there are that will give voice to the lie. But it’s a good money raising byline so why be honest when the lie raises so much money.

As for voting legislation, widespread voter fraud has never been nor ever will be an issue, but republicans want as few people to actually vote as possible because they believe that works to their advantage. So all those state laws designed to increase difficulty in voting have zero to do with making votes more secure (since they already are) and everything to with decreasing the number of votes (which they believe secures their wins).

If they really wanted to secure their wins, Republicans could always come up with better ideas. But that takes work, and they aren’t trying to go that route. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Oh, they are going that route OK but it won't be so much their better ideas but the really lousy ideas of Democrats that will do in Democrats in 22.

It's kinda funny isn't Tiny that Democrats will "never accept that" and are perfectly fine continuing the false narrative they put forth but are horrified that Trump/ Republicans might do the very same thing in promoting an outcome, they disagree with.


Here we are in 2021 and so many people still believe that Democrats and Republicans don't try to play this game the same way. The idea that Democrats are far superior and therefore deserve a different "look", is funny and sad at the same time. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Agreed. How many of our Democratic friends believe that Bush stole the election? You've got to give Gore credit though. He came a lot closer to winning than Trump did, and when push came to shove graciously bowed out.

A whole lot fewer democrats believed Bush stole the election than republicans who believe Trump won. Also they didn’t riot at the Capitol. And they didn’t have state govts trying to change the rules so that the big lie could continue on. It’s silly to compare the two situations. It ignores the magnitudes of difference between the efforts to overthrow an election, intentionally.

It’s a dishonest comparison at best and intentionally misleading one at worst. I expect better but maybe my expectations are too high.

Firstly I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know better than what you’re writing and the questions are academic rather than serious. I’ll pretend that you understand that republicans want fewer voters overall hence the laws intended to make voting less convenient.

That said, a simple question, who benefits when voting is made more convenient , simpler and more available? According to HF there’s no such thing as disparate impact so the answer has to be “both parties”. If that’s the case then why would republicans, who would have more voters want to limit voting? Could there be some sensible reason? Your answer is that they are paranoid about voting irregularities that don’t and have never existed. Hell the times it did exist was cheating by republicans (ie the North Carolina congressional race they got caught cheating and the Florida race they cheated in by using a false candidate). Your belief is that republicans in every state fear non-existent voter fraud to the extent they need to

1) reduce voting hours
2) manipulate voting locations
3) use specific IDs but eliminating others


Wouldn't reducing voting hours impact Republicans as well or is it only Black people that work and have limited means of transportation?



I would agree that manipulating voting locations could be a problem ( if proven by something other than Democrat talking points ) but a problem addressed by the courts PRIOR to the election just like the SC told Republicans that they had plenty of time to address the issues they wanted addressed before the last election.


And please explain why a Black person can't get the proper ID but White people can?


3 simple examples. How do any of these make voting have less “fraud”.

Explain how Fewer voting hours cuts fraud


Explain how fewer voting hours affect Blacks but not Whites?


Explain your fewer voting days cuts fraud


Explain how that impacts Blacks but not Whites?


Explain how fewer voting locations cuts fraud


Like I said, if one can prove fewer locations in majority Black precincts, you would have a case and could be taken to court prior to elections and I would support legislation making that not possible but I'd like to see the proof that it happened.


Explain how allowing gun licenses to be a proper ID but a student ID is improper cuts fraud.



Explain how any of these restrictions apply to Blacks and not Whites?


If you believe these measures are not designed to advantage one voter group over another then I’d love to read a legitimate explanation for how fraud is reduced by these measures but is equally designed to affect both parties.



Unless the words Black and White appear in any legislation, laws pertain to everybody of every color and therefore are not designed to work against one color or another. No matter how you argue this, a law applies to all color, period.




And then you make the kinda argument the loons make. No one has said illegals should be voting. In fact, they can’t. Only US citizens can vote and no matter how many illegals come into the country they still can’t vote. To argue otherwise is dishonest. Which is why I know you know better.



I'll post this on the assumption you don't know any better.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/o...elections.html

Washingtonians love to complain about taxation without representation. But for me and my fellow noncitizens, it is a fact of political life that we submit to unquestioningly year after year, primary after primary, presidential election after presidential election. Nearly 15 million people living legally in the United States, most of whom contribute as much as any natural-born American to this country’s civic, cultural and economic life, don’t have a say in matters of politics and policy because we — resident foreign nationals, or “aliens” as we are sometimes called — cannot vote.
Considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision undermining voting rights, and Republicans’ efforts to suppress, redistrict and manipulate their way to electoral security, it’s time for Democrats to radically expand the electorate. Proposing federal legislation to give millions of young people and essential workers a clear road to citizenship is a good start. But there’s another measure that lawmakers both in Washington and state capitals should put in place: lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren’t citizens — people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers.
Expanding the franchise in this way would give American democracy new life, restore immigrants’ trust in government and send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world.

Nobody pushing for illegals to vote , huh? And if Democrats had their way with midnight drop boxes and nobodies signature verification necessary, why wouldn't there be fraud? Trying to stop future fraud is not an argument that fraud has never happened. These measures are designed so that it doesn't happen which is entirely possible considering the things Democrats want, no voter ID at all, no signature verification necessary.



Will the Republican voting laws backfire, we will see. Unfortunately they will still be law and they are designed to retain power for a shrinking political group. Maybe there will be a swing but like everything the damage gets done then the over correction generally is worse.


Maybe?


At least you’re honest enough to have stated from the beginning that mass voter fraud was a big lie and that Trump lost. Some still pretend like hedging is a legitimate argumentative strategy. I love things like “I never said it was true but I wanted to see it play out” and “mass voter fraud could exist let’s see the evidence” or the best one “I never said there was mass voter fraud” all while not ever saying there was no mass voter fraud. Nothing’s worse than a hedger. Originally Posted by NoirMan

And some Democrats, some right here continue to say that Bush and Trump didn't win. What's the difference?

Your belief is that republicans in every state fear non-existent voter fraud to the extent they need to

1) reduce voting hours
2) manipulate voting locations
3) use specific IDs but eliminating others Originally Posted by NoirMan

I don't know this issue well enough to argue with you. I'm not convinced "1" and "2" are true. That is, I'm not convinced those provisions are incorporated into new voter laws. I read in Georgia the new law codifies voting hours and days but doesn't necessarily reduce them. As to voting locations, the only thing I've read is that Republicans want to reduce the number of drop boxes. The reason would be that some fear Democratic operatives will stuff fraudulent ballots into unsupervised drop boxes. As to #3, I made a fake ID when I was in high school that I used successfully. It was a high school ID. It makes sense to limit ID's to ones that are readily recognized in the state in question.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe Democrats are dumping tons of fraudulent ballots in drop boxes. And same for ID's -- I can't imagine there would be much fraud that revolved around the form of the ID. But some Republicans have been whipped up into a frenzy by Trump, Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, etc., and I don't see the downside in placating them. That's unless you're a Democrat and want Republicans to think elections are fraudulent, so they believe it makes no sense to go to the polls because their votes will make no difference.

Explain how Fewer voting hours cuts fraud
Explain your fewer voting days cuts fraud
Explain how fewer voting locations cuts fraud
Explain how allowing gun licenses to be a proper ID but a student ID is improper cuts fraud. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Explain why fewer voting hours (if that indeed is being incorporated into new voting laws) disadvantages Democrats

Explain why fewer voting days (if that indeed is being incorporated into new voting laws) disadvantages Democrats

Explain why fewer voting locations (if that indeed is being incorporated into new voting laws) disadvantages Democrats

Explain why it would make as much sense to accept an ID specific to a particular school over a license that's recognizable statewide, like a gun license.

And then you make the kinda argument the loons make. No one has said illegals should be voting. In fact, they can’t. Only US citizens can vote and no matter how many illegals come into the country they still can’t vote. To argue otherwise is dishonest. Which is why I know you know better. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Please read my post again. I said UNDOCUMENTED aliens ONCE NATURALIZED may be more likely to vote for Democrats. I think that's probably true. The reason I emphasize "undocumented" is because many legal immigrants, including the majority from Vietnam and Cuba who have experienced the worst of socialism, have a propensity to vote for Republicans.

Will the Republican voting laws backfire, we will see. Originally Posted by NoirMan

I think they will. These laws are firing up Democrats.

Did you see my reply to your post in the "Who's going to pay for all this shit" thread? It's back a page or two. I don't like arguing with you about voting rights. You probably know more about that than I do. So I'd rather argue about taxes. That's because I like to be a winner!

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=325

Without getting to into the weeds, a NY Times editorial from a noncitizen stating why noncitizens should be allowed to vote hardly stands for the proposition that there’s a political movement amongst democrats to allow noncitizens to vote. It’s a very silly argument that you should be smarter than to make. There’s no law out there or mechanism to allow for noncitizens to vote since every states requirement is that voters have to be citizens of the US. You know better as do I.

Where’d I say anything about black and white. I think the premise Tiny put forth was that republicans fear voter fraud and as such instituted measured to cut down fraud. I pointed out several changes that have nothing at all to with stopping fraud. They are intended to reduce voting altogether. They believe that works to there advantage. Republicans actions have nothing to do with fraud prevention.

I’ll ask again since you didn’t even ATTEMPT to answer my question

How does cutting voting hours reduce voter fraud?
How does cutting voting days reduce voter fraud?
How does cutting voting locations reduce voter fraud?
How does allowing a hunting or gun permit but disallowing student IDs as a form of ID reduce voter fraud?

None of these measures can explicably be justified as anti-fraud measures. If there’s a legitimate reason to institute them out of fear that they fix some massive fraud that’s occurred I’ll entertain the argument but I’ve yet to hear it from any legislator or any pundit. They just avoid giving an answer, similarly to the response above.

HF, For someone who writes all these lengthy posts one would expect your ability to read and comprehend to be better. Asking questions that have nothing at all to do with what was being discussed isnt difficult but I have faith you can pull it off if you try.

Then you go on to argue that Democrats want no voter ID. Democrats have agreed to voter ID but the Republicans don’t want to take yes for an answer. They want the non-germane limitations as well. And You argue for a solution in search of a problem. Whole states have mail in voting as their primary mode of voting without incident. To then claim that “it Could allow fraud” is disengenious. There has been no fraud of any significance that differs from in person voting so, once again it isn’t fraud that is trying to be prevented.

I’ve not seen anyone on here state that Trump lost 2016. I’ve seen Accusations that Russia interfered to Trumps benefit (which the entire US govt agreed with) through a social media campaign. I’ve seen no dispute that the votes were what they were. As for Bush the claim is that Florida, whose governor was Bush’s brother, and the Supreme Court, cut short the recount favoring Bush. But there was no riots and concerted effort to overturn the election. Also, that’s irrelevant to this discussion but I guess you needed to throw it in for no good reason.

I don't know this issue well enough to argue with you. I'm not convinced "1" and "2" are true. That is, I'm not convinced those provisions are incorporated into new voter laws. I read in Georgia the new law codifies voting hours and days but doesn't necessarily reduce them. As to voting locations, the only thing I've read is that Republicans want to reduce the number of drop boxes. The reason would be that some fear Democratic operatives will stuff fraudulent ballots into unsupervised drop boxes. As to #3, I made a fake ID when I was in high school that I used successfully. It was a high school ID. It makes sense to limit ID's to ones that are readily recognized in the state in question.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe Democrats are dumping tons of fraudulent ballots in drop boxes. And same for ID's -- I can't imagine there would be much fraud that revolved around the form of the ID. But some Republicans have been whipped up into a frenzy by Trump, Lin Wood, Rudy Giuliani, etc., and I don't see the downside in placating them. That's unless you're a Democrat and want Republicans to think elections are fraudulent, so they believe it makes no sense to go to the polls because their votes will make no difference.




Explain why fewer voting hours (if that indeed is being incorporated into new voting laws) disadvantages Democrats

Explain why fewer voting days (if that indeed is being incorporated into new voting laws) disadvantages Democrats

Explain why fewer voting locations (if that indeed is being incorporated into new voting laws) disadvantages Democrats

Explain why it would make as much sense to accept an ID specific to a particular school over a license that's recognizable statewide, like a gun license.




Please read my post again. I said UNDOCUMENTED aliens ONCE NATURALIZED may be more likely to vote for Democrats. I think that's probably true. The reason I emphasize "undocumented" is because many legal immigrants, including the majority from Vietnam and Cuba who have experienced the worst of socialism, have a propensity to vote for Republicans.



I think they will. These laws are firing up Democrats.

Did you see my reply to your post in the "Who's going to pay for all this shit" thread? It's back a page or two. I don't like arguing with you about voting rights. You probably know more about that than I do. So I'd rather argue about taxes. That's because I like to be a winner!

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=325 Originally Posted by Tiny

Without repeating twice, republicans believe that reducing voting across the board works to their advantage. Likely because they tend to prevail when there is lower turnout. They also likely base that on a belief that the more consistent voters (older voters) are favorable to them. This dynamic might change but we will have to see.

Like I said, whether those measures actually advantage or disadvantage democrats over republicans is irrelevant. What those measures don’t do is fight the scourge of mass voter fraud, which is the claim as to why they need to be instituted.

By the way, I’m sure no one is out forging student IDs (this would only apply to college IDs which are issued through a state college). Why the ole gun license or hunting license should be more reliable is nonsensical.