|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States10569 Posts
Democrats think they're favored the more mail-in ballots count (they're overrepresented in most mail-in ballot scenarios), so they're trying to extend the deadlines when votes are cast and when votes are counted. The Republicans are trying to stop them by showing that legislature makes election law and existing extensions to early voting and mail-in ballot law are sufficient in COVID times.
So let me get your argument right, both sides are partisan hacks when one side wants all the ballots to be cast and wants more votes, while the other is trying to stop those votes, and in your mind, these are equivalent and are both deserving of criticism or are the same?
Bruh. How in your mind, can you ever make this assertion that one side wanting everyone to vote, no matter the time they vote, to be the same as the other discounting perfectly valid votes?
And furthermore, voting fraud is so incredibly rare that this argument of "but we just want all the votes to be accurate" is just a misdirection argument to get away from the true reason which is to block valid votes because Republicans know they will lose.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-latest-voter-fraud-misinformation/
"But the total number of cases was just 491 — during a period in which literally billions of votes were cast,” Hasen wrote.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53353404
"But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is less than 0.0009%, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice."
EDIT: Put it another way, assuming the same voter fraud happened according to Brennan in 2016, in Michigan which was the closest margin of victory, a different of 11k votes out of the total votes cast of 4.8 million is still 0.2% difference. A 0.0009% fraud count would equal 43 votes. And that's assuming every vote that was involved in the fraud were going to only one candidate.
Danglars, you are disingenuously arguing these positions. Now, I'm not sure what your political affiliation is, but I can only imagine you are someone who leans right. If that's the case, surely you support freedom of speech, and surely you can agree that voting, which is literally casting your voice, your support, for a specific candidate or proposition, is the purest form of speech. And wouldn't that make these attempts to block votes the same as blocking free speech?
A state also has a duty to maintain accurate voter rolls. Both are intended to forestall climbing voter fraud by making it difficult to accomplish.
citation needed.
|
|
|
Danglars, you are disingenuously arguing these positions.
gasp
Oh naw you di'nt. How dare you suggest that the most intellectually dishonest poster, verifiably wrong both factually and morally on many things here, is posting disingenuously.
Or put it differently. At any time in point, when someone argues that it's better to "throw out" hundreds of thousands of votes because there might be (and i'm factually exaggerating here!) 100 fraudulent votes in there, he's not interested in a fair election. He's interested in winning by any means necessary, even if that means making yourself look like an absolute idiot by arguing that this would justify taking the means of voting away from so many people.
And it's probably one of the most un-american things one could think of. Unironically. Not that i ever got the impression in the first place that the average american gives a shit about the constitution in the first place, and only points at it if it aligns with their preferred political opinion. Regardless of political views.
|
On November 01 2020 07:52 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +Democrats think they're favored the more mail-in ballots count (they're overrepresented in most mail-in ballot scenarios), so they're trying to extend the deadlines when votes are cast and when votes are counted. The Republicans are trying to stop them by showing that legislature makes election law and existing extensions to early voting and mail-in ballot law are sufficient in COVID times. So let me get your argument right, both sides are partisan hacks when one side wants all the ballots to be cast and wants more votes, while the other is trying to stop those votes, and in your mind, these are equivalent and are both deserving of criticism or are the same? Bruh. How in your mind, can you ever make this assertion that one side wanting everyone to vote, no matter the time they vote, to be the same as the other discounting perfectly valid votes? And furthermore, voting fraud is so incredibly rare that this argument of "but we just want all the votes to be accurate" is just a misdirection argument to get away from the true reason which is to block valid votes because Republicans know they will lose. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-latest-voter-fraud-misinformation/"But the total number of cases was just 491 — during a period in which literally billions of votes were cast,” Hasen wrote. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53353404"But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is less than 0.0009%, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice." EDIT: Put it another way, assuming the same voter fraud happened according to Brennan in 2016, in Michigan which was the closest margin of victory, a different of 11k votes out of the total votes cast of 4.8 million is still 0.2% difference. A 0.0009% fraud count would equal 43 votes. And that's assuming every vote that was involved in the fraud were going to only one candidate. Danglars, you are disingenuously arguing these positions. Now, I'm not sure what your political affiliation is, but I can only imagine you are someone who leans right. If that's the case, surely you support freedom of speech, and surely you can agree that voting, which is literally casting your voice, your support, for a specific candidate or proposition, is the purest form of speech. And wouldn't that make these attempts to block votes the same as blocking free speech? Show nested quote +A state also has a duty to maintain accurate voter rolls. Both are intended to forestall climbing voter fraud by making it difficult to accomplish. citation needed.
You're leading with the dishonest framing of the sides, and following up with the same lazy stereotype that fraud doesn't matter and is only associated with voter suppression.
And then accuse me of disingenuously arguing the positions.
Yeah, go be honest and identify which election laws in your own state are just voter suppression. Actually persuade people and change the system in directions you favor. The whole selective enforcement by court rule is just lawlessness dressed up in a wig and lipstick. Thankfully, the courts aren't filled with these kind of huckster arguments, and legitimately weigh interests like running an "orderly, efficient election and in giving citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election" and " federal judges do not possess special expertise or competence about how best to balance the costs and benefits of potential policy responses to the pandemic, including with respect to elections." I hope you were sitting down as we saw such judicial extremism on such a clear issue of vote theft.
Mail it early or show up on election day, boys. It shouldn't be too much to ask for the most important decision in a Democracy. I expect to hear all the sad tales of people failing to take into consideration the security line at an airport when their plane is departing, because acting in a timely fashion for important things is a menace!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 01 2020 12:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2020 07:52 FlaShFTW wrote:Democrats think they're favored the more mail-in ballots count (they're overrepresented in most mail-in ballot scenarios), so they're trying to extend the deadlines when votes are cast and when votes are counted. The Republicans are trying to stop them by showing that legislature makes election law and existing extensions to early voting and mail-in ballot law are sufficient in COVID times. So let me get your argument right, both sides are partisan hacks when one side wants all the ballots to be cast and wants more votes, while the other is trying to stop those votes, and in your mind, these are equivalent and are both deserving of criticism or are the same? Bruh. How in your mind, can you ever make this assertion that one side wanting everyone to vote, no matter the time they vote, to be the same as the other discounting perfectly valid votes? And furthermore, voting fraud is so incredibly rare that this argument of "but we just want all the votes to be accurate" is just a misdirection argument to get away from the true reason which is to block valid votes because Republicans know they will lose. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-latest-voter-fraud-misinformation/"But the total number of cases was just 491 — during a period in which literally billions of votes were cast,” Hasen wrote. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53353404"But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is less than 0.0009%, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice." EDIT: Put it another way, assuming the same voter fraud happened according to Brennan in 2016, in Michigan which was the closest margin of victory, a different of 11k votes out of the total votes cast of 4.8 million is still 0.2% difference. A 0.0009% fraud count would equal 43 votes. And that's assuming every vote that was involved in the fraud were going to only one candidate. Danglars, you are disingenuously arguing these positions. Now, I'm not sure what your political affiliation is, but I can only imagine you are someone who leans right. If that's the case, surely you support freedom of speech, and surely you can agree that voting, which is literally casting your voice, your support, for a specific candidate or proposition, is the purest form of speech. And wouldn't that make these attempts to block votes the same as blocking free speech? A state also has a duty to maintain accurate voter rolls. Both are intended to forestall climbing voter fraud by making it difficult to accomplish. citation needed. Mail it early or show up on election day, boys. It shouldn't be too much to ask for the most important decision in a Democracy. I expect to hear all the sad tales of people failing to take into consideration the security line at an airport when their plane is departing, because acting in a timely fashion for important things is a menace!
How early is early enough in your mind?
|
United States10569 Posts
On November 01 2020 12:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2020 07:52 FlaShFTW wrote:Democrats think they're favored the more mail-in ballots count (they're overrepresented in most mail-in ballot scenarios), so they're trying to extend the deadlines when votes are cast and when votes are counted. The Republicans are trying to stop them by showing that legislature makes election law and existing extensions to early voting and mail-in ballot law are sufficient in COVID times. So let me get your argument right, both sides are partisan hacks when one side wants all the ballots to be cast and wants more votes, while the other is trying to stop those votes, and in your mind, these are equivalent and are both deserving of criticism or are the same? Bruh. How in your mind, can you ever make this assertion that one side wanting everyone to vote, no matter the time they vote, to be the same as the other discounting perfectly valid votes? And furthermore, voting fraud is so incredibly rare that this argument of "but we just want all the votes to be accurate" is just a misdirection argument to get away from the true reason which is to block valid votes because Republicans know they will lose. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-latest-voter-fraud-misinformation/"But the total number of cases was just 491 — during a period in which literally billions of votes were cast,” Hasen wrote. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53353404"But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is less than 0.0009%, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice." EDIT: Put it another way, assuming the same voter fraud happened according to Brennan in 2016, in Michigan which was the closest margin of victory, a different of 11k votes out of the total votes cast of 4.8 million is still 0.2% difference. A 0.0009% fraud count would equal 43 votes. And that's assuming every vote that was involved in the fraud were going to only one candidate. Danglars, you are disingenuously arguing these positions. Now, I'm not sure what your political affiliation is, but I can only imagine you are someone who leans right. If that's the case, surely you support freedom of speech, and surely you can agree that voting, which is literally casting your voice, your support, for a specific candidate or proposition, is the purest form of speech. And wouldn't that make these attempts to block votes the same as blocking free speech? A state also has a duty to maintain accurate voter rolls. Both are intended to forestall climbing voter fraud by making it difficult to accomplish. citation needed. You're leading with the dishonest framing of the sides, and following up with the same lazy stereotype that fraud doesn't matter and is only associated with voter suppression.And then accuse me of disingenuously arguing the positions. Yeah, go be honest and identify which election laws in your own state are just voter suppression. Actually persuade people and change the system in directions you favor. The whole selective enforcement by court rule is just lawlessness dressed up in a wig and lipstick. Thankfully, the courts aren't filled with these kind of huckster arguments, and legitimately weigh interests like running an "orderly, efficient election and in giving citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election" and " federal judges do not possess special expertise or competence about how best to balance the costs and benefits of potential policy responses to the pandemic, including with respect to elections." I hope you were sitting down as we saw such judicial extremism on such a clear issue of vote theft. Mail it early or show up on election day, boys. It shouldn't be too much to ask for the most important decision in a Democracy. I expect to hear all the sad tales of people failing to take into consideration the security line at an airport when their plane is departing, because acting in a timely fashion for important things is a menace!
It's not a stereotype and it's just an inconvenient fact that you'd rather ignore to pedal your nonsensical position that apparently, demanding excessive voter id laws or arbitrary time frames and methods for collecting votes is "lawlessness."
And if you're trying to imply that federal judges do not create policy and leave that to the legislature is fucking hilarious. You either don't know care about our judicial history, or you continue to conveniently ignore facts that are not on your side. The judiciary does make policy, it's called the common law. And even when the law does exist by itself, statutory interpretation is creating and directing policy because the judge effectively writes what the law actually means. Yes, the legislature "makes" the law, but the definition of the words and the meaning in the law is created by the judiciary when challenged.
And finally, mail it early or show up? You realize that not everyone can do those, nor want to do those. Drop boxes exist for a reason, how is a drive-in voter station any different from mail in or a drop box method? How is it different from your normal walk-in early voting booths? But wait wait, let me guess, you're going to take a very Scalia-like position and specify that a "drive-in" while literally the same as the aforementioned methods of voting, is still different and not included in the law, so nope, it's counted out.
One last point, you claim that I am dishonest with the method that I portray the sides. Yet, the laws like North Carolina voting laws are literal voter suppression and has been shown to be voter suppression.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/08/north-carolina-comes-up-one-vote-short-for-stay-in-election-law-case/
(By the way, this case literally shows the potential for justices to create policy. lol)
On November 01 2020 11:59 m4ini wrote:
And it's probably one of the most un-american things one could think of. Unironically. Not that i ever got the impression in the first place that the average american gives a shit about the constitution in the first place, and only points at it if it aligns with their preferred political opinion. Regardless of political views.
Yep. Voter suppression or the idea that limiting how to vote is inherently un-american. When we fought for independence, before the war one of our demands was for representation in the British government, which we were denied. Voting is quite literally a form of speech, and our freedom of speech is being limited by the suppression of the vote. Why someone like Danglars, who I no doubt would qualify himself as an advocate for free speech, would enjoy the limitations of the ability to vote, is beyond me. No doubt, he would rather play a political game with voter rights than actually admit that maybe he doesn't stand for the things he claims to.
|
Geez 11 billion dollars been spent on federal elections this year. Can we please overturn Citizens United ruling.
|
Danglars has proven time and time again he is not one to argue in good faith. I appreciate the people trying to explain to him the many ways his thinking is flawed but let's be real, he'll never admit he's wrong despite the overwhelming evidence (and after following this thread the last half year, it's obvious that's a feature). That he's still pushing Rudy et al's propaganda is hysterical; stop wasting your time.
On November 01 2020 13:56 Starlightsun wrote:
Geez 11 billion dollars been spent on federal elections this year. Can we please overturn Citizens United ruling.
I'm glad this was brought up b/c ultimately this (and perhaps Fairness Doctrine) are probably the worst/harmful decisions made in the last 30 years. A stooge like Trump would not be possible if either of these things hadn't happened.
Unfortunately, the same people pushing today to disenfranchise legitimate voters (read: CHEAT) will fight tooth and nail to keep it the status quo. And with the SC stacked now, good luck ever overturning that.
Democracy in America is legitimately in trouble. Anxious as fuck for Tuesday; please vote if you haven't.
|
United States10569 Posts
On November 01 2020 13:56 Starlightsun wrote:
Geez 11 billion dollars been spent on federal elections this year. Can we please overturn Citizens United ruling.
at least this will be one of the highest turnouts in the past many decades. Hopefully we set some records, so part of this money definitely is being put into really good use. But I agree, Citizen's United was a terrible ruling.
On November 01 2020 14:24 Mazer wrote:Danglars has proven time and time again he is not one to argue in good faith. I appreciate the people trying to explain to him the many ways his thinking is flawed but let's be real, he'll never admit he's wrong despite the overwhelming evidence (and after following this thread the last half year, it's obvious that's a feature). That he's still pushing Rudy et al's propaganda is hysterical; stop wasting your time. Show nested quote +On November 01 2020 13:56 Starlightsun wrote:
Geez 11 billion dollars been spent on federal elections this year. Can we please overturn Citizens United ruling. I'm glad this was brought up b/c ultimately this (and perhaps Fairness Doctrine) are probably the worst/harmful decisions made in the last 30 years. A stooge like Trump would not be possible if either of these things hadn't happened.Unfortunately, the same people pushing today to disenfranchise legitimate voters (read: CHEAT) will fight tooth and nail to keep it the status quo. And with the SC stacked now, good luck ever overturning that. Democracy in America is legitimately in trouble. Anxious as fuck for Tuesday; please vote if you haven't.
In fairness, Trump spent half as much money as Clinton did in 2016. Money is not necessary the issue with getting votes, but it certainly is overwhelming and disrupts the political process.
To your first point, yeah I think I'm just going to give up.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On November 01 2020 13:56 Starlightsun wrote:
Geez 11 billion dollars been spent on federal elections this year. Can we please overturn Citizens United ruling.
While vehemently opposed to it on principle, it does appear it’s not been quite as horrific in practice thus far.
Mostly I guess because in a fragmented media landscape the power of the dollar in political advertising doesn’t go as far as it used to, but there’s no reason to believe that this trend will continue and people won’t adapt and use money more effectively.
While ultimately unsuccessful Sanders ran two successful campaigns in terms of small donor engagement and visibility, and Trump won using a pretty atypical campaign and got outspent pretty heavily.
Again, I don’t think this will necessarily stay the case but it is rather curious that in the wake of Citizens United we’ve seen some progress from anti-establishment characters, I certainly wouldn’t have predicted that when the ruling was made.
|
On November 01 2020 14:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2020 13:56 Starlightsun wrote:
Geez 11 billion dollars been spent on federal elections this year. Can we please overturn Citizens United ruling. While vehemently opposed to it on principle, it does appear it’s not been quite as horrific in practice thus far. Mostly I guess because in a fragmented media landscape the power of the dollar in political advertising doesn’t go as far as it used to, but there’s no reason to believe that this trend will continue and people won’t adapt and use money more effectively. While ultimately unsuccessful Sanders ran two successful campaigns in terms of small donor engagement and visibility, and Trump won using a pretty atypical campaign and got outspent pretty heavily. Again, I don’t think this will necessarily stay the case but it is rather curious that in the wake of Citizens United we’ve seen some progress from anti-establishment characters, I certainly wouldn’t have predicted that when the ruling was made.
I hope you are right. I thought when it happened that CU had forever cemented the power of a class of donors over political life. It looks like it's just one more fucked up thing about the system, rather than being the insurmontable game changer it seemed to be. But it certainly contributes to stack the odds against anyone who opposes the very wealthy or fights for radical redistributive policies.
|
On November 01 2020 12:08 Danglars wrote:
Mail it early or show up on election day, boys. It shouldn't be too much to ask for the most important decision in a Democracy. I expect to hear all the sad tales of people failing to take into consideration the security line at an airport when their plane is departing, because acting in a timely fashion for important things is a menace!
And yet the page before, you were arguing for the right of untrained election agents to throw out ballots based on signatures. These guys who could perfectly decide to throw out a good chunk of ballots from an area that votes majorily for X or Y party. Do you believe these officials to be skilled enough or always 100% non-partisan ? Is your signature 100% perfect every time ?
It is not. They are not. So this "mail it early" is not sufficient, a lot of people do that but still see their votes thrown out for no good reason. There are orders of magnitude more ballots thrown out erroneously for signature issues that should not be, than for voter fraud.
The numbers for fraud were given a bit higher in the thread, and the articles talking about ballots wrongly thrown out for "bad" signatures were a few years ago, there is no way I'll find them again easily, but they were easily in the thousands per state (successful contests of the decision to throw them out).
What about the republican party trying to stop *vote counting* on november 3rd in several states ? Even for ballots correctly mailed early and arrived on time ? Like, at midnight stop counting the votes and announce results even if you've not finished counting ? Is that not bullshit ? How can you keep defending republicans ? Even in Texas they want to throw out dozens of thousands of votes legally cast through a drive-through voting site for whatever reasons, even after it was rejected by the state supreme court...
You will argue "it will be rejected". And hopefully it will, but that's still the policy of the republican party. They are trying all they can to NOT count votes. The democratic party is trying to count ALL votes, even if casted a bit late or received too late but SENT BEFORE ELECTION DAY due to, I don't know, the pandemic, or a political hack removing mail sorting machines. If you can't see the difference here, it's hopeless (of course it favors their party, but in the end, one of them is doing something morally good, counting votes, and the other is doing the reverse, there's clearly a pattern here).
|
There's two sides to the issue. But when your side is consistently trying to throw out votes, maybe your side is just fucking wrong, and they're not 2 comparable positions.
|
|
|
So let me get thus straight, the texas legislative branch that is overwhelmingly Republican approves drive through voting. It is useed but when they realized that the wrong people where voting, democrats cause we all know they are not allowed to vote they went to the texas Supreme Court which is overwhelmingly Republican and lost. Are now going to one of the most partisan judges on federal courts to try and trow out 100000 votes
100000 let that number sink in.
How they try and twist that as dems being just as bad i really interested to see. The mental gymnastics will be astonishing.
|
|
|
On November 02 2020 03:03 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2020 02:59 Shingi11 wrote:
So let me get thus straight, the texas legislative branch that is overwhelmingly Republican approves drive through voting. It is useed but when they realized that the wrong people where voting, democrats cause we all know they are not allowed to vote they went to the texas Supreme Court which is overwhelmingly Republican and lost. Are now going to one of the most partisan judges on federal courts to try and trow out 100000 votes
100000 let that number sink in.
How they try and twist that as dems being just as bad i really interested to see. The mental gymnastics will be astonishing.
Relevant statement from our Republican former Speaker of the House of Texas, Joe Straus. For context, he was Speaker at a time when the Republican party in Texas was very much about small government and extremely limited federal interference in state matters
I just dont, this is texas. These people will die for the right to own a gun. You will have to pry it from there cold dead fingers but right to vote, not important. How they can fight so zealously for a more fringe right but literally not care about a founding right of the country is confounding.
edit
like try and take the guns from 100000 lawful Texas gun owners. I guarantee cites will be burning.
|
On November 02 2020 03:18 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2020 03:03 plasmidghost wrote:On November 02 2020 02:59 Shingi11 wrote:
So let me get thus straight, the texas legislative branch that is overwhelmingly Republican approves drive through voting. It is useed but when they realized that the wrong people where voting, democrats cause we all know they are not allowed to vote they went to the texas Supreme Court which is overwhelmingly Republican and lost. Are now going to one of the most partisan judges on federal courts to try and trow out 100000 votes
100000 let that number sink in.
How they try and twist that as dems being just as bad i really interested to see. The mental gymnastics will be astonishing.
Relevant statement from our Republican former Speaker of the House of Texas, Joe Straus. For context, he was Speaker at a time when the Republican party in Texas was very much about small government and extremely limited federal interference in state matters https://twitter.com/SpeakerStraus/status/1322943776470478853 I just dont, this is texas. These people will die for the right to own a gun. You will have to pry it from there cold dead fingers but right to vote, not important. How they can fight so zealously for a more fringe right but literally not care about a founding right of the country is confounding. edit like try and take the guns from 100000 lawful Texas gun owners. I guarantee cites will be burning. If those 100k gun owners were Democrats they wouldn't care either.
|
|
|
I remember, 2 monthes ago, when people in this very thread were arguing that USA had the best democracy. What a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
