|
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 |
I thought I was pretty clear, apparently I wasn't.
The default assumption when Republicans want to change election laws will be that Republicans are trying to rig the election, because they have and still are repeatedly trying to rig the election.
If you want to talk about a case where you believe the GOP isn't trying to rig the election but making a considered and fair change to an unfair law then you need to explain that, because the default position is, as said, that they are not acting in good faith.
No where did you make an argument that this is a fair change based on X, Y Z, You immediately jump to "amagad why is it ok when Democrats do it but not Republicans" without any consideration that perhaps posters here are not ok with the other situations either".
Instead of immediately going on the attack, consider actually explaining your position and the reasoning behind it first.
|
On May 15 2024 22:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:42 oBlade wrote:
You opened this can of worms with election conspiracies that the GOP is trying to "rig" Nevada by suing to only count ballots received by a deadline of election day (which is otherwise the law as regards every other form of casting a ballot - early voting, drop boxes which have to be emptied on time, and election day voting which has rules on when polls close). Why have Democrats in Colorado made it harder for Democrats to vote, Republicans in Pennsylvania made it easier for Democrats to vote, and Democrats in D.C. not made it easier for everyone to vote? If you think these things happened, then provide your own evidence and your own explanations. I'm not entertaining these projections where you and BlackJack claim other people need to defend positions that they don't necessarily hold. If you and BlackJack want to focus on Colorado, then that's your prerogative, but we don't need to buy in to your assertions if they remain unjustified. Here's my evidence since you still don't seem up to date: The 117th Congress and Biden didn't make Election Day a federal holiday. Pennsylvania GOP greatly expanded mail-in voting in the lead-up to the 2020 election, in which their candidate for president lost the state critically, and badly. Blue Colorado has the exact same mail-in voting rules the Nevada GOP is now suing for in Nevada. I am actively asking you why these objective realities have occurred. You seem reluctant to acknowledge the rhetorical trap you've built around yourself. Why don't YOU explain what is functionally different between Colorado and Nevada such that you can support the claim of "rigging" in Nevada's case which is about the exact same thing?
I'm just going to repeat answers that I've preemptively provided to these "new" questions: Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. If you think Colorado is being rigged, then please explain why.
I'm pretty sure that CO is less likely to be a swing state and influence the electoral college, so maybe CO officials never really cared about having a perfectly accurate popular vote (which I disagree with, on the grounds of consistency and democracy, yet still recognize that a slight CO miscount won't have an effect on the election the same way that NV would). That's complete speculation on my part, though, which is the best I can do, despite your insistence that I somehow have answers to all these other states that you're using as distractions. It should also go without saying, but: Biden not making Election Day a federal holiday is not evidence that Republicans aren't rigging the election. That's a complete non sequitur.
Please explain to me like I'm five years old why the GOP is trying to rig the election in Nevada, WITHOUT mentioning that a polling station in Georgia closed. You're the only one who sees it.
Not sure why you're bringing up Georgia polling stations... another derailment... but as I've said before: I imagine that the reason why Republicans are targeting Nevada is because it was a close race last time and they think that NV is flippable for the 2024 election. That's why they targeted PA and GA last time too (because they were very close races). Them targeting CO probably wouldn't have done them much good.
It's 100% clear you're not arguing or even discussing an idea, just assuming and then listing. Sure it's possible different states can have different systems that work for them. This is what I told you when you first brought up a weird quote mine from a "report" that said a Georgia polling station closed. You seem to acknowledge mail-in voting in some way leans Democrat. Yet a Georgia polling station closes, and your conclusion is NOT
a) Obviously it's totally plausible that they wouldn't need as many polling stations, since so many more people are voting by mail. I'll need to look at this further to make any claim of rigging...
Nor
b) Clearly the Georgia Democrats are trying to suppress the in-person Republican vote in a case of rigging...
but rather, the Republicans are at it again with their rigging. This isn't reasoning. It's pure, primitive assumption.
You seem to be super obsessed with Georgia polling stations, so here you go:
The clogged polling locations in metro Atlanta reflect an underlying pattern: the number of places to vote has shrunk statewide, with little recourse. Although the reduction in polling places has taken place across racial lines, it has primarily caused long lines in nonwhite neighborhoods where voter registration has surged and more residents cast ballots in person on Election Day. The pruning of polling places started long before the pandemic, which has discouraged people from voting in person.
In Georgia, considered a battleground state for control of the White House and U.S. Senate, the difficulty of voting in Black communities like Union City could possibly tip the results on Nov. 3. With massive turnout expected, lines could be even longer than they were for the primary, despite a rise in mail-in voting and Georgians already turning out by the hundreds of thousands to cast ballots early.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013 eliminated key federal oversight of election decisions in states with histories of discrimination, Georgia's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million people, yet polling locations have been cut statewide by nearly 10%, according to an analysis of state and local records by Georgia Public Broadcasting and ProPublica. Much of the growth has been fueled by younger, nonwhite voters, especially in nine metro Atlanta counties, where four out of five new voters were nonwhite, according to the Georgia secretary of state's office.
The metro Atlanta area has been hit particularly hard. The nine counties — Fulton, Gwinnett, Forsyth, DeKalb, Cobb, Hall, Cherokee, Henry and Clayton — have nearly half of the state's active voters but only 38% of the polling places, according to the analysis.
As a result, the average number of voters packed into each polling location in those counties grew by nearly 40%, from about 2,600 in 2012 to more than 3,600 per polling place as of Oct. 9, the analysis shows. In addition, a last-minute push that opened more than 90 polling places just weeks before the November election has left many voters uncertain about where to vote or how long they might wait to cast a ballot.
The growth in registered voters has outstripped the number of available polling places in both predominantly white and Black neighborhoods. But the lines to vote have been longer in Black areas, because Black voters are more likely than whites to cast their ballots in person on Election Day and are more reluctant to vote by mail, according to U.S. census data and recent studies. Georgia Public Broadcasting/ProPublica found that about two-thirds of the polling places that had to stay open late for the June primary to accommodate waiting voters were in majority-Black neighborhoods, even though they made up only about one-third of the state's polling places. An analysis by Stanford University political science professor Jonathan Rodden of the data collected by Georgia Public Broadcasting/ProPublica found that the average wait time after 7 p.m. across Georgia was 51 minutes in polling places that were 90% or more nonwhite, but only six minutes in polling places that were 90% white.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl
As you can see from the above source, it's absolutely ludicrous for you to suggest that Republicans are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, or because fewer polling stations are needed.
And... again... Republicans messing with Georgia polling locations (or not messing with them... even though they are messing with them) does not invalidate the Nevada issue.
Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. Sir, the post office is federal. The mail is the same everywhere.
Sir, not all mail gets delivered at the exact same rate, regardless of state, starting location, or destination. If it did, such as if every legal mail-in ballot was guaranteed delivery within three days, then this entire topic of conversation would have been moot.
Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. Tell us first what things are actually different about Nevada, and then explain why Georgia doesn't deserve this same logical consideration when you list it offhand as part of some nationwide rigging conspiracy.
That's your job, not mine. Here's a start: Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Feel free to look into it and let me know.
|
On May 15 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:
As is often the case - nobody actually objects fundamentally to the idea that ballots should be received by election day. The disagreement is simply that when the D's do something it's good/moral and when the R's do the exact same thing it's fascism/tyranny. It's just another flavor of the same argument we always have. The minutiae of election law details is immaterial. The only thing missing is GH dropping in to tell us both sides are fascist.
Democrats are laying the foundations for fascists. Republicans are the fascists that will exploit Democrats ostensible obliviousness and/or hubris. While I probably wouldn't bother arguing against someone claiming Democrats were also fascists, it's not something I would bother arguing in favor of either.
If/when the Republican fascists win power, it's been made abundantly clear by Democrats/their supporters they will pick up their batons and join the fascists in vain hopes of escaping their wrath.
As far as the elections stuff, with the US not even in the top 25 democracies, it's clearly a bipartisan problem. Of course Democrats and their supporters solution, as always, is to run faster on the hamster wheel.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
The nuance of how individual states manipulate their election laws (NY Democrats are known for this as well) strikes me as one of countless examples of missing the forest for the trees in US politics. We should have a standardized federal election system that has reliable results within a day or two of when the last votes are cast. We don't/won't because of the insistence on running on the hamster wheel instead of fixing it. The argument over nuances between particular states is like bickering over which rungs on the hamster wheel to run on to me.
|
This is satire, but it's too good not to share.
Kristi Noem Attempts Damage Control By Announcing She Also Hates Cats
PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA (The Borowitz Report)—In what some political observers called a desperate attempt to salvage her political career, on Wednesday Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota declared that she also despises cats.
“Over the past few weeks, the mainstream media has worked overtime to distort my disclosure about having shot and killed my dog,” she said. “This has led many to believe, falsely, that I am a cat person.”
“Let me say this, loud and clear: As God is my witness, I hate cats, also,” she said.
Claiming that the number of cats in the U.S. has “skyrocketed” under Joe Biden, she issued a stark warning.
“My message to America’s cats is simple,” she said. “You can run, but you can’t hide. The United States of America is not your litter box.” https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/kristi-noem-attempts-damage-control?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
On a related note: Any predictions on who Trump's runningmate will be?
|
The situation is so volatile it’s hard to confidently predict anything other than the vague “type” of person they will be. Trump used Pence to convince people on the fence he’s not crazy. But I think Trump’s entire brand at this point is his identity as a “political prisoner” of sorts. I think he will choose someone who has absolutely zero moral compass while also being a good speaker. The only objective I think is going to be “I am a victim and Biden is abusing his power to imprison me because he fears me”. Trump will probably use his running mate to fan violent flames in the usual culpable deniability kinda way. The person will also likely be a woman with plastic surgery of some kind.
|
In his mind Pence refusing to aid his insurrection is what stopped him from becoming President, despite losing the election.
So I imagine the most important aspect of the new VP candidate would have been be complete and utter devotion to Trump more then anything else.
|
On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig.
Here, you disagree with Colorado's lack of postmark deadline.
On May 15 2024 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:29 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:42 oBlade wrote:
You opened this can of worms with election conspiracies that the GOP is trying to "rig" Nevada by suing to only count ballots received by a deadline of election day (which is otherwise the law as regards every other form of casting a ballot - early voting, drop boxes which have to be emptied on time, and election day voting which has rules on when polls close). Why have Democrats in Colorado made it harder for Democrats to vote, Republicans in Pennsylvania made it easier for Democrats to vote, and Democrats in D.C. not made it easier for everyone to vote? If you think these things happened, then provide your own evidence and your own explanations. I'm not entertaining these projections where you and BlackJack claim other people need to defend positions that they don't necessarily hold. If you and BlackJack want to focus on Colorado, then that's your prerogative, but we don't need to buy in to your assertions if they remain unjustified. Here's my evidence since you still don't seem up to date: The 117th Congress and Biden didn't make Election Day a federal holiday. Pennsylvania GOP greatly expanded mail-in voting in the lead-up to the 2020 election, in which their candidate for president lost the state critically, and badly. Blue Colorado has the exact same mail-in voting rules the Nevada GOP is now suing for in Nevada. I am actively asking you why these objective realities have occurred. You seem reluctant to acknowledge the rhetorical trap you've built around yourself. Why don't YOU explain what is functionally different between Colorado and Nevada such that you can support the claim of "rigging" in Nevada's case which is about the exact same thing? I'm just going to repeat answers that I've preemptively provided to these "new" questions: Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. If you think Colorado is being rigged, then please explain why.
Here, you have no problem with it, feign ignorance, or are too lazy to grasp why it might have any relevance despite railing us with GOP anecdotes from all over the country. Do you even know what you believe? I hope you're not just being randomly and situationally reactionary.
Anyway, good news, I looked into it.
Colorado has a ballot reception deadline. They are Blue. Nevada has a ballot postmark deadline with a 3-4 day grace period. Both states have universal/automatic mail-in ballots. Both states have drop boxes. They are two states away with comparable size and geography, Colorado having double the population of Nevada (presumably needing, if anything, MORE time, not less).
Ballots in Colorado must be sent out by October 18th at the latest. Ballots in Nevada must be sent out by October 16th at the latest. The Blue state with no GOP lawsuit has a shorter period at both ends.
I believe it goes without saying, however will nonetheless state here for the sake of absolute clarity, that it would be easier to vote in Colorado if the mail-in voting period was October 18th until November 8th, than it is at present under the current period which lasts from October 18th until November 5th.
I therefore posit that votes are being suppressed in Colorado, because it doesn't have a longer deadline, unlike an almost neighboring state does, and under our established standard of proof for rigging, this demonstrates that Colorado Democrats must be being bribed by Republicans under the table to rig elections against themselves. Just more duplicity by the elephant in the room. (Or you're wrong and this has nothing to do with rigging.)
However, even if, for the sake of argument, alllllll the bad things you believed were true...
Why couldn't Nevada just send out ballots three/four days earlier since you have no issue with Colorado?
On May 15 2024 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm pretty sure that CO is less likely to be a swing state and influence the electoral college, so maybe CO officials never really cared about having a perfectly accurate popular vote (which I disagree with, on the grounds of consistency and democracy, yet still recognize that a slight CO miscount won't have an effect on the election the same way that NV would). That's complete speculation on my part, though, which is the best I can do, despite your insistence that I somehow have answers to all these other states that you're using as distractions. It should also go without saying, but: Biden not making Election Day a federal holiday is not evidence that Republicans aren't rigging the election. That's a complete non sequitur.
They are separate questions. It is not evidence or lack of evidence of anything, nor was it presented as such. It is a question. To the best of your opinion, why wouldn't the 117th Congress take the most obvious opportunity in history to protect us from election rigging by making Election Day a federal holiday - which you specifically said would make voting easier, and that the Republicans don't want - why didn't they do that? As someone who vehemently supports a federal holiday on Election Day, but isn't an expert on Democratic policymaking, I would like to know for my own edification.
Maybe the term "rig" is causing the confusion, even though I'm trying to use it correctly - by only applying it to things Republicans do. But let's eschew such parlance. Why did the Pennsylvania GOP make it easier for Democrats to vote by expanding mail-in voting in 2020? (This is not about Nevada, before you again misuse the term "non sequitur.") Was it lack of competence? Did they think they were riggingmaking it in their favor?
Edit: I was about to say fair points on the Georgia research, except for it being from the last cycle, it's interesting to learn black voters distrust mail-in ballots - But did you just call Georgia a "derailment" and said it was irrelevant to Nevada when you were the first person who brought it up and you also linked your own post again as a citation to try to drag this into a circle?
|
On May 15 2024 22:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:42 oBlade wrote:
You opened this can of worms with election conspiracies that the GOP is trying to "rig" Nevada by suing to only count ballots received by a deadline of election day (which is otherwise the law as regards every other form of casting a ballot - early voting, drop boxes which have to be emptied on time, and election day voting which has rules on when polls close). Why have Democrats in Colorado made it harder for Democrats to vote, Republicans in Pennsylvania made it easier for Democrats to vote, and Democrats in D.C. not made it easier for everyone to vote? If you think these things happened, then provide your own evidence and your own explanations. I'm not entertaining these projections where you and BlackJack claim other people need to defend positions that they don't necessarily hold. If you and BlackJack want to focus on Colorado, then that's your prerogative, but we don't need to buy in to your assertions if they remain unjustified. Here's my evidence since you still don't seem up to date: The 117th Congress and Biden didn't make Election Day a federal holiday. Pennsylvania GOP greatly expanded mail-in voting in the lead-up to the 2020 election, in which their candidate for president lost the state critically, and badly. Blue Colorado has the exact same mail-in voting rules the Nevada GOP is now suing for in Nevada. I am actively asking you why these objective realities have occurred. You seem reluctant to acknowledge the rhetorical trap you've built around yourself. Why don't YOU explain what is functionally different between Colorado and Nevada such that you can support the claim of "rigging" in Nevada's case which is about the exact same thing? Please explain to me like I'm five years old why the GOP is trying to rig the election in Nevada, WITHOUT mentioning that a polling station in Georgia closed. You're the only one who sees it. It's 100% clear you're not arguing or even discussing an idea, just assuming and then listing. Sure it's possible different states can have different systems that work for them. This is what I told you when you first brought up a weird quote mine from a "report" that said a Georgia polling station closed. You seem to acknowledge mail-in voting in some way leans Democrat. Yet a Georgia polling station closes, and your conclusion is NOT a) Obviously it's totally plausible that they wouldn't need as many polling stations, since so many more people are voting by mail. I'll need to look at this further to make any claim of rigging... Nor b) Clearly the Georgia Democrats are trying to suppress the in-person Republican vote in a case of rigging... but rather, the Republicans are at it again with their rigging. This isn't reasoning. It's pure, primitive assumption. Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. Sir, the post office is federal. The mail is the same everywhere. Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. Tell us first what things are actually different about Nevada, and then explain why Georgia doesn't deserve this same logical consideration when you list it offhand as part of some nationwide rigging conspiracy.
I'm a bit confused about the whole courtcase, so maybe you can explain it to me. While I am of the opinion that it is incomprehensible that there aren't national laws that govern federal elections, and guarantee that every legitimate vote will be counted within a reasonable timeframe and there are reasonable standards to ensure every vote counted is a legitimate vote, I understand that the US insists on its hodgepodge kludge of state rights, and thus whatever each state does individually goes. In many ways, the EU is in a similar situation, and if it survives for 200 years without updates, its electoral system will no doubt look just as inanely outdated.
However, within that state rights system, each state sets up its own election laws, that suit that state. While we can look at some of them and disagree, e.g. I find it very hard to agree with Georgia's inner city polling density, the way to fix those problems is apparently to elect local politicians who will fight to fix the issues. Now obviously the Nevada court case is designed around the idea that the deadline for casting a legal vote is election day. I agree with that deadline, but as multiple people, and no doubt, the defense are arguing, there are a number of reasons why the postmark doesn't represent when the ballot was cast, and using that as your cut-off is arbitrary, especially as there are other ways of identifying when the vote was cast. I am supportive of invalidating votes if there is no way of determining whether they were cast on (or before) election day. However, if there are other reasonable methods for determining if a ballot was cast legitimately, I don't see any reason not to use them. Were there actually any illegitimate votes counted in Nevada in 2020?
Finally, I don't really see much reason at all to compare this to Colorado or anywhere else. Isn't that the whole point of state rights? That Colorado can make their own laws, and Nevada can too? Isn't the place to change election laws you disagree with in the Nevada congress, not the Nevada courts? How is this less judicial overreach than Roe vs Wade? Which republicans got repealed on the grounds that it wasn't something the courts should decide, but should be left up to congress and/or individual states.
|
It is an interesting part of the eternal struggle of federalism that states administer federal elections but subject to federal law and national court cases - like that states haven't been allowed to remove their opponents from federal ballots - I don't see a total lack of relevance if there's systems of voting that could potentially allow illegal ballots by nature in another state, like imagine someone puts their ballot in a postbox at 5pm, polls close at 7pm say, the mailman already picked that one up today, so it gets postmarked the next day and doesn't count, or worse, it gets picked up tomorrow but someone else also filled out and dropped theirs at 5am on November 6th and doesn't get postmarked, which, big deal or not, would be an illegal ballot that would probably get counted. That affects everyone. Any system that's ambiguous and has this kind of spillage in one place, it's not going to lend itself to being trusted in other places either, which is its own form of disenfranchisement. In 2020 the grace period/deadline was 7 days after but for 2024 so far it got moved up to 3/4 days after by the Democrats. For the Republicans wanting to move it up to a receipt rather than postmark deadline, well, case law and precedent are not on the GOP's side for this lawsuit.
|
On May 16 2024 04:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Here, you disagree with Colorado's lack of postmark deadline.
How on earth could you possibly infer that from what I've written here? I've written that I want all states to count all their legal, mailed-in-on-time ballots, not "I disagree with Colorado's lack of postmark deadline". I never even mentioned that Colorado has or doesn't have a postmark deadline in the first place.
Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 22:29 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:42 oBlade wrote:
You opened this can of worms with election conspiracies that the GOP is trying to "rig" Nevada by suing to only count ballots received by a deadline of election day (which is otherwise the law as regards every other form of casting a ballot - early voting, drop boxes which have to be emptied on time, and election day voting which has rules on when polls close). Why have Democrats in Colorado made it harder for Democrats to vote, Republicans in Pennsylvania made it easier for Democrats to vote, and Democrats in D.C. not made it easier for everyone to vote? If you think these things happened, then provide your own evidence and your own explanations. I'm not entertaining these projections where you and BlackJack claim other people need to defend positions that they don't necessarily hold. If you and BlackJack want to focus on Colorado, then that's your prerogative, but we don't need to buy in to your assertions if they remain unjustified. Here's my evidence since you still don't seem up to date: The 117th Congress and Biden didn't make Election Day a federal holiday. Pennsylvania GOP greatly expanded mail-in voting in the lead-up to the 2020 election, in which their candidate for president lost the state critically, and badly. Blue Colorado has the exact same mail-in voting rules the Nevada GOP is now suing for in Nevada. I am actively asking you why these objective realities have occurred. You seem reluctant to acknowledge the rhetorical trap you've built around yourself. Why don't YOU explain what is functionally different between Colorado and Nevada such that you can support the claim of "rigging" in Nevada's case which is about the exact same thing? I'm just going to repeat answers that I've preemptively provided to these "new" questions: Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. If you think Colorado is being rigged, then please explain why. Here, you have no problem with it, feign ignorance, or are too lazy to grasp why it might have any relevance despite railing us with GOP anecdotes from all over the country. Do you even know what you believe? I hope you're not just being randomly and situationally reactionary.
You're 0 for 2 now with your inferences. You and BlackJack hyperfocusing on Colorado seems to have confused you, as I had warned earlier. I just want the states to count all the ballots, whether it's CO or NV or any other state. If any state's ballot-counting system doesn't permit this, then I think it should be changed.
Why couldn't Nevada just send out ballots three/four days earlier since you have no issue with Colorado?
Setting aside your third inappropriate inference (that I necessarily have no issue with Colorado... again, I would have a problem with their system if it doesn't count all the ballots), you're asking me a question that I answered at the very beginning of our conversation. I'm totally fine with proactively rescheduling things, like moving up mail-in deadlines or when ballots are sent out, in an effort to make sure all the legal ballots are counted. In fact, I'm literally the one who made that recommendation in the first place, several days ago, when I wrote this:
"If a voter is told to mail in their vote by November 1st, for example, then they should assume their vote will be counted, whether they mail it on November 1st or a full week earlier. If that deadline ends up leading to issues where the counting needs an extra day or two after Election Day to finish up, then the officials need to plan better for the next election. I don't know if that means that they need to hire more people to count votes faster, or improve the delivery system to obtain votes earlier, or push the mail-in deadline up a day or two next time, or just keep counting votes one or two days late if they don't think it's an issue, but the ethical solution cannot be to throw out votes from people who met the deadline and correctly did what they were told. And, again, the context is that Republicans want to throw out those votes because they're most likely to be Democratic votes."
Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm pretty sure that CO is less likely to be a swing state and influence the electoral college, so maybe CO officials never really cared about having a perfectly accurate popular vote (which I disagree with, on the grounds of consistency and democracy, yet still recognize that a slight CO miscount won't have an effect on the election the same way that NV would). That's complete speculation on my part, though, which is the best I can do, despite your insistence that I somehow have answers to all these other states that you're using as distractions. It should also go without saying, but: Biden not making Election Day a federal holiday is not evidence that Republicans aren't rigging the election. That's a complete non sequitur. They are separate questions. It is not evidence or lack of evidence of anything, nor was it presented as such. It is a question. To the best of your opinion, why wouldn't the 117th Congress take the most obvious opportunity in history to protect us from election rigging by making Election Day a federal holiday - which you specifically said would make voting easier, and that the Republicans don't want - why didn't they do that? As someone who vehemently supports a federal holiday on Election Day, but isn't an expert on Democratic policymaking, I would like to know for my own edification. Maybe the term "rig" is causing the confusion, even though I'm trying to use it correctly - by only applying it to things Republicans do. But let's eschew such parlance. Why did the Pennsylvania GOP make it easier for Democrats to vote by expanding mail-in voting in 2020? (This is not about Nevada, before you again misuse the term "non sequitur.") Was it lack of competence? Did they think they were riggingmaking it in their favor? Edit: I was about to say fair points on the Georgia research, except for it being from the last cycle, it's interesting to learn black voters distrust mail-in ballots - But did you just call Georgia a "derailment" and said it was irrelevant to Nevada when you were the first person who brought it up and you also linked your own post again as a citation to try to drag this into a circle?
I don't know why Election Day isn't a federal holiday. I wish it were. And I don't know why Republicans try to rig certain states at certain times, as opposed to all of the states all of the time.
Republicans closing southern polling stations that disproportionately hurt Democratic voters, like in Georgia, is evidence that they're trying to rig those states. Your mistake was thinking that I was citing Georgia's situation as evidence for Nevada's issue, when in reality the Nevada issue isn't tied to whether or not anything happened with Georgia's polling stations. Nevada is a problem because of what's happening in Nevada, not because of what happened in Georgia or Pennsylvania or any other state where other attempted rigging occurred.
It doesn't sound like we're making much progress here, especially considering the number of times you've been insisting that I believe certain things that I don't. Feel free to have the last word, if you'd like, but I'm going to stop posting about this specific topic.
|
On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know.
And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument.
It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument.
|
On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument.
It's more strange you insist he won't acknowledge that's his argument. He's said Republicans can't be trusted in that regard, Hanlon's razor but etc. He also listed the 'shady shit' you refer to. That was a few pages back. It's been part of his argument the whole time, trying to wave it in his face as "DONT YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT" now seems pretty silly.
|
On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging?
The two states you're comparing have completely different approaches and effects:
Nevada is a case where Republicans are considering the prevention of votes, in a swing state, which will reduce the votes of the other party (Democrats) and potentially flip the election.
Colorado (the state that you and oBlade have selected as a point of comparison) is a case where - even if I were to grant you all of the parallels that you're asserting - Democrats aren't bothering to count the rest of their own votes in a non-swing state, because it doesn't affect the election.
What Republicans are doing (in Nevada) can influence the election and sabotage the other party; what Democrats are doing (in Colorado) will not influence the election, and only potentially sabotage themselves. Those are important distinctions.
Hurting your own party vs. hurting the other party is a significant difference, as is influencing a swing state's outcome vs. not influencing the outcome of a non-swing state. It sounds like Colorado Democrats are being short-sighted and dumb, and I still don't like the idea of them not counting all their own votes (it's still unfair, it's still undemocratic, and what about if, one day, Colorado ends up becoming a swing state where an accurate count truly matters), but these key differences between the Republican/Nevada circumstances and the Democratic/Colorado circumstances are what lead to the conclusions that the former is tampering and malicious, while the latter is probably "just" stupid and likely not evil. Also, there's the background context of Republicans having a history of doing this kind of thing with malintent, and so on.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument.
It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument.
I'm not sure why you think I don't acknowledge that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. Democrats do deserve the benefit of the doubt, and Republicans don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I've outlined all the reasons why, as well as highlighted the key differences between Republicans in Nevada and Democrats in Colorado. It's not "Republicans and Democrats are both doing X; when Republicans do X it's bad because Republicans are bad, and when Democrats do X it's fine because of some double-standard I hold". I also take issue with your use of the word "purely", as I read that as an implication that my perspective is automatically unjustified and biased, despite the evidence I've laid out for why those two groups deserve to be perceived differently.
Stopping a hypothetical discussion at something like "If Nevada Republicans and Colorado Democrats both prevent 50,000 votes from being counted, then they're equally bad" might miss the crucial nuance of something like "Actually, Nevada Republicans prevented 50,000 Democratic votes from being counted, which flipped Nevada from blue to red and changed the winner of the presidential election, while Colorado Democrats prevented 50,000 of their own Democratic votes from being counted, which had no effect whatsoever because Democrats already won Colorado by over 100,000 additional votes." The full context matters.
Perhaps this will help:
If Republicans in Texas wanted to stop counting their own votes after they've secured Texas's electoral votes, I would disagree with that move (because I think all votes should be counted anyway), but I wouldn't accuse Republicans of trying to rig Texas or unfairly influence the election. Texas isn't a swing state, and they're not preventing opposing votes.
Furthermore, if Democrats in a swing state tried to throw out Republican votes, I would consider that to be a much worse offense (as it could unfairly influence the election) than Democrats stopping their California or New York counts after they've locked in an obviously-blue state.
Anyways, as I mentioned to oBlade, I'll be personally stopping my own posts about this topic. Feel free to have the last word.
|
On May 16 2024 08:32 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument. It's more strange you insist he won't acknowledge that's his argument. He's said Republicans can't be trusted in that regard, Hanlon's razor but etc. He also listed the 'shady shit' you refer to. That was a few pages back. It's been part of his argument the whole time, trying to wave it in his face as "DONT YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT" now seems pretty silly.
Great, then we agree. Rehashing my point - Nobody here, except maybe DPB, fundamentally disagrees with a rule to require ballots to be received by election day in order for them to count. In fact some posters have even said it's preferred so that we can get the election results sooner. So we can skip the immaterial details of "what should the deadline be" because it's irrelevant. The argument is not that the rule is flawed, it's that Republicans are ill-intentioned.
|
Northern Ireland23324 Posts
Well yes given the rationale behind Republican-lead changes being a response to fraudulent voting patterns that funnily enough there’s no compelling evidence for.
I mean the Dems are hardly saints either but the GOP may as well actually codify bad faith into their party’s constitution equivalent at this stage, it’s hardly surprising non-Republicans no longer extend any bipartisan benefit of the doubt.
As an outsider it just seems a clusterfuck all-round to have all these different procedures for a federal election and some standardisation in at least some areas wouldn’t go amiss. Some difference in methodology to account for differing area’s characteristics sure, but at least vaguely singing off the same hymn sheet would seem to me to make more sense.
|
If there were some form of "standardization" then it would be that ballots should be received by election day to be counted because that's already the way it is in the majority of states. It makes the most sense to make the standard what the majority of states are already doing.
Now we know that Nevada has its own rules which surpass the deadline set by the majority of states. They allow un-postmarked ballots to be assumed to have been sent on time and counted along with the others. This is especially important because according to DPB Nevada is a swing state and these ballots might be necessary to swing the election for Biden.
Now I don't know who made the rules in Nevada that allow potentially late ballots to be counted. All we know now, thanks to this thread, is that to undo these rules could potentially swing the election away from Biden and that would be thievery.
|
Norway28525 Posts
On May 16 2024 15:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2024 08:32 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 16 2024 07:51 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:43 BlackJack wrote:On May 15 2024 21:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 21:00 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2024 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 15 2024 08:31 BlackJack wrote:I'm not sure how I can be any more clear. Here's a link showing which states do and don't accept ballots after election day. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/politics/mail-in-voting/Many blue states don't count ballots received after election day. Tell me what's different between New Hampshire or Colorado (blue states) not counting the ballots they received after election day vs Republicans not wanting Nevada to count they ballots they received after election day? How is that not the exact same? They are the same. You seem to be the only one asserting that there's a difference. If New Hampshire doesn't count all the ballots, then I disagree with what NH is doing too. The statements I've been making apply to all the states, not just the ones that Republicans are actively trying to rig. Looks like the double standard was all in your head. We understand that you think the GOP wants to rig everything they can, including the Nevada elections. We find this proposition hard to reconcile with its implications: for example, that the machiavellian GOP has somehow convinced Colorado Democrats to rig their own elections against themselves at the same time the feeble-minded Pennsylvania GOP was apparently tricked into doing the same thing, and why the 117th Congress and Biden didn't deliver the justice of unrigging Election Day federally when they had the chance, after one of the most contentious elections in recent history, to nationwide acclaim and an obvious political victory. Unless you can provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps and explain what's going on, you ought to expect further head scratching. Did you just... make up a whole list of assertions here? I certainly didn't make these claims, so the onus isn't on me to "provide another step of analysis to fill these gaps". They're not my gaps. If you think these things happened, then please explain why. If you think these things happened and you're okay with them happening, then please explain why. The attempted rigging of the 2020 election by the Republican party is well-documented, from Trump calling Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to invent enough non-existent Republican votes to flip Georgia; to trying to eliminate legal mail-in ballots to flip Pennsylvania; to the dozens of failed lawsuits all over the country; to the general spreading of misinformation regarding the security of both in-person and mail-in ballots (which led to the violent insurrection and the fact that half of Republicans still incorrectly think that the election was stolen). At the beginning of our conversation, I had made a list of examples where Republicans were actively trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote, including for this upcoming 2024 presidential election: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4196#83905 His point was, if the Nevada Republicans plot to require ballots be received by Election Day is an attempt to rig the election against the Democrats, then why would other blue states, like Colorado, also make it a law to require ballots be received by Election Day. Are they trying to rig it against themselves? That makes no sense. Different states have different populations, voting percentages, rates of counting votes, mail-in dates, delivery efficiencies, percents of mail-in votes vs. in-person votes, and other variables to consider. You'd have to look at what things are actually the same and what things are actually different to try and figure out why each state has the rules that they do. Colorado may have a system that works for that state, or it may not. Feel free to look into it and let me know. And how do you know those variables didn't come into play when Nevada Republicans make their rules proposal? Are these variables only a thing in blue states but when Republicans want to have the same rule it's obviously just election rigging? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your argument is obviously purely that Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt and Republicans don't. I'm not even disagreeing with that argument. Republicans have indisputably done a lot more shady shit around elections and attempts to disenfranchise voters in recent history. It's not an unreasonable argument. It's just really freaking weird that you won't acknowledge that's your argument. It's more strange you insist he won't acknowledge that's his argument. He's said Republicans can't be trusted in that regard, Hanlon's razor but etc. He also listed the 'shady shit' you refer to. That was a few pages back. It's been part of his argument the whole time, trying to wave it in his face as "DONT YOU SEE THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT" now seems pretty silly. Great, then we agree. Rehashing my point - Nobody here, except maybe DPB, fundamentally disagrees with a rule to require ballots to be received by election day in order for them to count. In fact some posters have even said it's preferred so that we can get the election results sooner. So we can skip the immaterial details of "what should the deadline be" because it's irrelevant. The argument is not that the rule is flawed, it's that Republicans are ill-intentioned.
There's a pretty huge difference between setting the cutoff between when the mail is sent and when it is received. This, to me, is the central point here. If you vote before the cutoff, your vote should always count, if you vote after the cutoff, it should not. I'm up for discussing how long before the deadline it's reasonable to demand that you vote if you are going to vote by mail (well it's a boring discussion but just a figure of speech), either way I don't have a fundamental issue with saying you need to vote 2 days earlier if you are voting by mail. However, everybody who votes by that deadline needs to have their vote counted, you absolutely cannot discount votes because the count or mail service was slower than expected (tbh irrelevant whether that happens by will or by accident).
|
On May 16 2024 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:
The situation is so volatile it’s hard to confidently predict anything other than the vague “type” of person they will be. Trump used Pence to convince people on the fence he’s not crazy. But I think Trump’s entire brand at this point is his identity as a “political prisoner” of sorts. I think he will choose someone who has absolutely zero moral compass while also being a good speaker. The only objective I think is going to be “I am a victim and Biden is abusing his power to imprison me because he fears me”. Trump will probably use his running mate to fan violent flames in the usual culpable deniability kinda way. The person will also likely be a woman with plastic surgery of some kind.
On May 16 2024 04:21 Gorsameth wrote:
In his mind Pence refusing to aid his insurrection is what stopped him from becoming President, despite losing the election.
So I imagine the most important aspect of the new VP candidate would have been be complete and utter devotion to Trump more then anything else.
I think you're both making a fair assessment, and it's definitely interesting how his 2024 runningmate approach might be so different from his 2016/2020 runningmate approaches. I agree with you that with Mike Pence, it was a strategic choice to ground Trump among more traditional, religious, long-time conservatives and RINOs, to secure those non-MAGA Republican votes. At this point, in 2024, I think Trump just wants someone who will echo his fascism and persecution complex and selfishness and destruction of America. I don't know if him having a redundant runningmate (one who doesn't really bring in any new demographics that Trump hasn't already secured) is the best strategic choice for him, but I'm never surprised when Donald Trump repeatedly plays the "I'm Donald Trump and I'm the best, and I want to surround myself with people who stroke my ego" move. I think that's what Project 2025 is all about, too.
|
Two presidential debates coming up, between Biden and Trump. We'll get to see both candidates' stamina, their articulation, and whether or not moderators know how to moderate.
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Wednesday agreed to hold two campaign debates — the first on June 27 hosted by CNN and the second on Sept. 10 hosted by ABC — setting the stage for their first presidential face-off to play out in just over a month.
https://apnews.com/article/2024-election-presidential-debates-biden-trump-6b1d1dbb2ed61c7637041b23662d7da8
|
Not great that Biden feels the need to debate Trump. iirc, last time we talked about the debates, the consensus was Biden would only bother if he was desperate.
He's only down a point or so in the national averages, but trailing in every battleground and down ~5-6% from where he was at this point in 2020. I suspect the Biden campaign has even more troubling data than is publicly available and/or isn't as confident as his voters that Biden's on a winning path currently.
That said it also feels like a bit of a bluff/play in that they knew Trump would reflexively accept and it could be spun as Trump dodging debating if they don't come to terms while burying the announcement that Biden was refusing to participate in the previously/traditionally scheduled debates.
Neither of them wants RFK Jr. so if he qualifies they may both dodge the debates and claim the other is the coward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
