|
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 |
On October 22 2026 22:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:
I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning.
My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit. “Medicare for all” needs to nationalize the means of healthcare production to achieve the structural benefits of single payer. And I think people like Buttigieg probably know that.
I do not think that is necessary. Medicare for all has massive negotiating power. They can basically tell hospitals and doctors what they think is fair for any given procedure, and as long as that procedure can still be done at that cost, hospitals don't really have a choice, because they either take that amount or they have basically no customers anymore.
The benefit of single payer is the negotiating position. You don't necessarily need to nationalize hospitals and so forth for this.
|
Democrats in red states like Ossoff and Andy Beshear are virtually guaranteed to move left if they throw their hat into a presidential primary (and the reverse is true for Republicans in blue states). You can't really extrapolate much besides that in their hypothetical platforms until they actually start running.
Also consider the fact that Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020 both moved their platforms more to the left after the primary was over just to ensure they'd win wary Bernie Sanders voters.
Basically my point is, there are so many variables about platforms between now and the open of the 2028 primary that it's almost pointless to start discussing it now. At least wait until the midterms are over.
|
On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 20:26 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 05:13 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". You can't tamper with voting machines, America's elections are the most secure in history. I hope they continue to stay that way, despite Trump repeatedly trying to cheat, and despite his appointees currently trying to tamper with voting machines. Nobody is currently trying to tamper with voting machines. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or italicize it. We just read an article about whistleblowers calling out Trump's appointees for trying to get people to tamper with voting machines and secretly keep the information, which spawned this very discussion.
We didn't read it. I read it. You read the headline and wove it into the conspiracy web. The article was published this month. The situation documented by the anonymously sourced allegations was still the beginning of 2025. The article was clear. That is not "currently." You know what year it is.
"Tamper" is you projecting what you think a government cybersecurity agency would do if it tested a voting machine. "Secretly keep the information" is you assuming you should tell a company their machine is broken before telling your bosses so they can instead enforce policy which is their job, like for example by publicly crucifying them and revamping the entire system if it was actually insecure.
You have no answer to this except that you heard "tamper" first and now it's stuck forever.
On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). Your example of them trying to rig multiple elections, is one election? "For example" means I'm giving one example. It doesn't mean that there is only one example to give. Let's see if you believe this or just said it randomly without checking how many claims you had in the barrel. You have like 6 cycles to choose from. Which ones (multiple) did Trump cheat and how many votes were involved? In 2016, Trump committed 34 felonies to cover up information that he thought would have hurt him during the election. And he publicly asked Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. And the Mueller Report listed 10 different ways that Trump obstructed justice during the 2016 election. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2020, Trump and his allies sued dozens of times to try and overturn election results, without a shred of evidence. And Trump specifically called Georgia's secretary of state to try and pressure him into giving Trump a win in Georgia. And Trump and his buddies created slates of fake electors across multiple swing states, in the hopes that they would give lost states to Trump. And he orchestrated a violent insurrection to try and stop the results from being certified. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2024, Trump and his fellow Republican leaders continued to try and cheat so completely that there is a 359-citation Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_efforts_to_disrupt_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. If only there were a political movement pushing to make it impossible for people who aren't eligible to vote, to register to vote, or cast ballots. And to get the different aspects of government to work together to ensure that. That would be a great way to save the integrity of elections. Hush money is not illegal. You are allowed to try to stop information that you think will hurt you in your own election. The falsified business records felonies you refer to hinge on an alleged, uncharged violation of campaign finance law. Your standard of "cheating" and "rigging" has been reduced to "filing lawsuits" when it comes to telling us about the evil Republicans.You are too swept up in the vortex to realize what a wide definition of cheating you allow when talking about the other side and what a narrow definition of special exemption you give for what you see as your own side (the side you always vote for and think Harris was a qualified genius). Utter double standard. If you used any fair standard in your worldview, you would realize things like Virginia trying to rig a 10-1 Congressional map, and the decades-old efforts by Democrats to pad the census with illegal immigrants to win extra seats in the House by Democrat sanctuary jurisdictions, are 100% in line with the Machiavellian cheating of... lawsuits... that bothers you from Republicans. You are both complaining about things of the exact same level. I'm happy to talk about Congress another time, but this conversation is focused on presidential elections with Trump (2016, 2020, 2024). Please stay on topic. There's no reason for you to try to create additional derailments like your assertion that I "think Harris was a qualified genius". Trump cheating in multiple elections has nothing to do with Harris being qualified (or not) or a genius (or not). Trump and his buddies creating countless frivolous lawsuits to cast doubt on election integrity and to try to flip states that he lost fair-and-square is cheating, even if it was ultimately unsuccessful. (A person can cheat and still lose.) Show nested quote +I asked you a question, not Wikipedia. Appealing to 359 citations that you obviously haven't read and I'm not reading is a fallacy, but since you littered the link and didn't mention anything else I'll just take the initiative to debunk one part of it: Voter registrations
In January 2024, two people (one who heads two "election integrity"[246][247] groups and another who ran as a volunteer for the Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee in 2022[248]) sued the Maryland State Board of Elections for access to state voter records.[249] They were represented by the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), which was founded in 2022 by William Barr, Karl Rove, Steve Wynn, and Bobby Burchfield (a lawyer for the RNC and Trump's 2020 election campaign who represented their efforts to halt mail-in ballots in North Carolina during that election).[250] The court literally ruled in their favor that the state violated the law. So you dumped an article you didn't read with 359 random things listed as "disruption." Wikipedia editors... yawn. They make an article like this for you to dump on people, you, an adult, college graduate, send it to other people. I don't know who's worse. They might not actually believe it. Like let's take a break from thinking you're in a debate performance and see how deep you are. You leveled up from 2020 to claim to me 2024 has an article with 359 citations. If you think that is significant, how do you not think Republican cheating in 2024 was worse than 2020? And newsflash, they WON in 2024. Do you actually think Republicans' cheating flipped the election? This is important to either confess, or deny and admit that dropping the appeal to 359 citations was just rhetorical smoke and mirrors. No, I don't think that Trump/Republicans cheating in 2024 flipped the election, but that doesn't mean that their cheating was acceptable. The idea that they won anyway so cheating was fine is a bad take, just like the idea that they lost in 2020 anyway so cheating was fine is another bad take. This isn't anything to "confess", "deny", or "admit", and it's not "rhetorical smoke and mirrors". They shouldn't be cheating, full stop, regardless of whether the outcome was ultimately affected by the cheating.
You are superficially dishonest in a way that shouldn't fool anyone. The fact that you have potentially fooled yourself is disturbing.
When the discussion is you think Republicans are rigging everything ("currently tampering with muh voting machines") then 2026 (math professor: does it divide by four? presidential year? no?) midterms are definitely on the table.
When it comes to me pointing out the things you are talking about do NOT involve planting votes, changing votes, erasing votes, or any such cheating... they're just disputes about the system, lawsuits, whether and how to fix voter rolls, investigating eligible voters, district lines, requests for recounts, audits, maintaining chain of custody, checking the security of machines, how to do mail in ballots, things that Republicans and Democrats both do and both complain about. Then it's: Don't mention those pesky midterms.
I'm actually much more concerned about the fact California doesn't and can't verify whether its voters are eligible right now, than I am about... Trump routing hush money through Michael Cohen in 2016? (which I have a concern level of 0, to an infinite number of significant figures, over). You are deeply concerned about things you deride as frivolous lawsuits, that you admit affected nothing (because they were thrown out or whatever it may be). Only one of us is actually interested in secure elections.
On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This brings back the statement you made earlier, that I replied to. You didn't respond to me. Here it is again, in bold: On October 20 2026 23:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 20 2026 22:43 oBlade wrote:On October 20 2026 21:54 LightSpectra wrote:
We could easily have nation-wide 100% mail-in voting like Oregon has done since 2000. Republicans would never agree to it though since they know people with physical disabilities and people that have to work long shifts on election day are overwhelmingly left-leaning. We could also easily have nice nationwide Georgia-style voter ID.You do not need universal mail-in voting to accommodate people with disabilities or people who work (who are not overwhelmingly left-leaning lol). LS didn't just say people who work; LS said people who work long shifts. Feel free to ask LS for a citation if you want. If every person eligible to vote were to receive a free voter ID (in the mail or via email, whichever the person prefers) without needing to do anything on their part, I'd be fine with that. Would you? Perhaps it's something that you and I could agree on. I didn't respond to that because it was deliberately obtuse from the moment you thought reminding us that the original post said long was a contribution. As though I made my post secretly believing people who work leaned right wing, but people who work LONG on election day secretly lean left wing, and not that the entire claim was made up and none of it leans anywhere at all. You got so caught up tripping on whether one word was copy/pasted that you missed the point. The rest of your question is concern trolling. I don't know what "without needing to do anything on their part" means, so I don't agree with it. A citizen has to do things to vote. They have to do things to get a driver's license. They have to do things to pay taxes. I am not interested in discussing "in theory" with you, I don't need to agree with you how many angels go through the head of a pin, and I have no idea what receiving an ID by email is supposed to be other than a joke troll idea, I'm only interested in the real world. I asked the question in good faith, especially to extend an olive branch, because you're so incendiary and angry and bracing for a fight with me all the time. When I turned 18, the government mailed me a letter that basically said "Happy birthday, now it's time for jury duty". I didn't need to actively do anything to receive that letter. And yes, you need to do things to vote and to get a driver's license; there's no disagreement there. (And given that a vehicle registration card can be printed out via email, I definitely don't think that an e-mail option for voter ID is "a joke troll idea".) I think a free voter ID should automatically be sent to anyone who is eligible to vote, so that as long as they also register to vote (which is already a requirement) and also fill out / send in a ballot (which is already a requirement) and bring their free automatic voter ID (which is the new thing that you partially suggested when you asked for a voter ID, and I added the qualifiers that it should be free and automatic), then that's all that needs to happen. If the voter ID isn't free, and if it's not automatically sent to everyone eligible, then count me out.
There are potentially reasons why you can't get your driver's license, real ID, and passport emailed to you and just print them. Something about people not being registered vehicles.
|
On October 22 2026 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning. + Show Spoiler +My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right + Show Spoiler +that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit. If dyhb, you, DPB, and the rest could all see yourselves supporting Buttigieg (not sure how dyhb feels about Ossoff), that seems like your clear best choice. That all dyhb's haters would be falling in line behind dyhb's first choice is just convenient for people with dyhb's politics. The Overton window doesn't move itself. Why do you suppose it went to the right instead of the left?
Friend, you can't just skip over the parts of my post where I repeatedly say that any other progressive standout would be my preference and the parts why I find Buttigieg onerous.
Adding spoilers around relevant parts of the post and then pretending I wrote something else is pretty fucked up.
|
On October 22 2026 23:58 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning. + Show Spoiler +My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right + Show Spoiler +that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit. If dyhb, you, DPB, and the rest could all see yourselves supporting Buttigieg (not sure how dyhb feels about Ossoff), that seems like your clear best choice. That all dyhb's haters would be falling in line behind dyhb's first choice is just convenient for people with dyhb's politics. The Overton window doesn't move itself. Why do you suppose it went to the right instead of the left? Friend, you can't just skip over the parts of my post where I repeatedly say that any other progressive standout would be my preference and the parts why I find Buttigieg onerous.
What progressive standouts?
|
On October 23 2026 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 23:58 Jankisa wrote:On October 22 2026 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning. + Show Spoiler +My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right + Show Spoiler +that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit. If dyhb, you, DPB, and the rest could all see yourselves supporting Buttigieg (not sure how dyhb feels about Ossoff), that seems like your clear best choice. That all dyhb's haters would be falling in line behind dyhb's first choice is just convenient for people with dyhb's politics. The Overton window doesn't move itself. Why do you suppose it went to the right instead of the left? Friend, you can't just skip over the parts of my post where I repeatedly say that any other progressive standout would be my preference and the parts why I find Buttigieg onerous. What progressive standouts?
You've been reading my posts long enough to know who they are, first you spoiler them out and then you pretend like you don't know who I am talking about.
That is both dishonest and shitty.
|
On October 23 2026 00:13 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2026 00:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 23:58 Jankisa wrote:On October 22 2026 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning. + Show Spoiler +My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right + Show Spoiler +that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit. If dyhb, you, DPB, and the rest could all see yourselves supporting Buttigieg (not sure how dyhb feels about Ossoff), that seems like your clear best choice. That all dyhb's haters would be falling in line behind dyhb's first choice is just convenient for people with dyhb's politics. The Overton window doesn't move itself. Why do you suppose it went to the right instead of the left? Friend, you can't just skip over the parts of my post where I repeatedly say that any other progressive standout would be my preference and the parts why I find Buttigieg onerous. What progressive standouts? You've been reading my posts long enough to know who they are, first you spoiler them out and then you pretend like you don't know who I am talking about. That is both dishonest and shitty.
They literally aren't there, and I didn't want to assume, which is why I asked.
I would guess AOC, but beyond that I don't know. If there's agreement among everyone like there is on Buttigieg on someone more progressive than Buttigieg I'd like to see it.
|
On October 22 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 20:26 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 05:13 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". You can't tamper with voting machines, America's elections are the most secure in history. I hope they continue to stay that way, despite Trump repeatedly trying to cheat, and despite his appointees currently trying to tamper with voting machines. Nobody is currently trying to tamper with voting machines. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or italicize it. We just read an article about whistleblowers calling out Trump's appointees for trying to get people to tamper with voting machines and secretly keep the information, which spawned this very discussion. We didn't read it. I read it. You read the headline and wove it into the conspiracy web. The article was published this month. The situation documented by the anonymously sourced allegations was still the beginning of 2025. The article was clear. That is not "currently." You know what year it is. "Tamper" is you projecting what you think a government cybersecurity agency would do if it tested a voting machine. "Secretly keep the information" is you assuming you should tell a company their machine is broken before telling your bosses so they can instead enforce policy which is their job, like for example by publicly crucifying them and revamping the entire system if it was actually insecure. You have no answer to this except that you heard "tamper" first and now it's stuck forever.
This is the article: https://www.propublica.org/article/cisa-election-security-donald-trump
I do know what year it is. It's 2026. You're right that 2025 was part of the problem, but it continued through 2026. This is indeed a current problem. Here's the full quote from the article: " “There is a difference between deprioritizing and being nonexistent,” said Ryan Macias, an election technology and cybersecurity expert who has worked as a consultant for CISA. In 2025 and through mid-September 2026 — when the bulk of preparations for the election typically would have been completed — “they were nonexistent. Literally nonexistent.” "
Here are other quotes from just the first quarter of the article, as well as the "highlights" of the article that "were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story", that have caused and continue to cause concern. Basically every other sentence from this part of the article is damning, hence the long list:
"An Unusual Request: Political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security wanted the agency that protects election systems to get and hack a voting machine, which shocked staffers."
"Undermining Election Security: President Donald Trump has said voting is vulnerable even as his administration has undermined the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is supposed to protect it."
"On Their Own: Election officials across the country say the Trump administration’s attacks on CISA have left them to solve security issues with the midterms approaching."
"Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices."
"The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference."
" “My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don’t like,” one of the former officials said. “This goes against everything CISA represents.” "
"Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation into CISA’s ability to do its job and demanded answers as to why federal funds are not being used to support election security as directed by Congress."
"Several state election authorities said the agency provided them no assistance — and no explanation for its absence — during the most critical planning stages for the upcoming midterms."
"While Trump has repeatedly warned that America’s elections are vulnerable to hacking, in some cases repeating disproven claims, experts said his administration is undermining the federal government’s role in helping secure them."
"Though CISA re-emerged in September with a last-minute security plan for the election, some state officials told ProPublica they fear that what is left of the agency has been compromised by a conspiracy-obsessed presidential administration."
"Some state authorities said they no longer trusted the administration enough to share information with CISA, a key to the agency’s success in past elections."
"Current and former CISA employees and state election officials describe an agency that has become significantly less equipped to help states fight legitimate cyber threats."
Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). Your example of them trying to rig multiple elections, is one election? "For example" means I'm giving one example. It doesn't mean that there is only one example to give. Let's see if you believe this or just said it randomly without checking how many claims you had in the barrel. You have like 6 cycles to choose from. Which ones (multiple) did Trump cheat and how many votes were involved? In 2016, Trump committed 34 felonies to cover up information that he thought would have hurt him during the election. And he publicly asked Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. And the Mueller Report listed 10 different ways that Trump obstructed justice during the 2016 election. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2020, Trump and his allies sued dozens of times to try and overturn election results, without a shred of evidence. And Trump specifically called Georgia's secretary of state to try and pressure him into giving Trump a win in Georgia. And Trump and his buddies created slates of fake electors across multiple swing states, in the hopes that they would give lost states to Trump. And he orchestrated a violent insurrection to try and stop the results from being certified. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2024, Trump and his fellow Republican leaders continued to try and cheat so completely that there is a 359-citation Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_efforts_to_disrupt_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. If only there were a political movement pushing to make it impossible for people who aren't eligible to vote, to register to vote, or cast ballots. And to get the different aspects of government to work together to ensure that. That would be a great way to save the integrity of elections. Hush money is not illegal. You are allowed to try to stop information that you think will hurt you in your own election. The falsified business records felonies you refer to hinge on an alleged, uncharged violation of campaign finance law. Your standard of "cheating" and "rigging" has been reduced to "filing lawsuits" when it comes to telling us about the evil Republicans.You are too swept up in the vortex to realize what a wide definition of cheating you allow when talking about the other side and what a narrow definition of special exemption you give for what you see as your own side (the side you always vote for and think Harris was a qualified genius). Utter double standard. If you used any fair standard in your worldview, you would realize things like Virginia trying to rig a 10-1 Congressional map, and the decades-old efforts by Democrats to pad the census with illegal immigrants to win extra seats in the House by Democrat sanctuary jurisdictions, are 100% in line with the Machiavellian cheating of... lawsuits... that bothers you from Republicans. You are both complaining about things of the exact same level. I'm happy to talk about Congress another time, but this conversation is focused on presidential elections with Trump (2016, 2020, 2024). Please stay on topic. There's no reason for you to try to create additional derailments like your assertion that I "think Harris was a qualified genius". Trump cheating in multiple elections has nothing to do with Harris being qualified (or not) or a genius (or not). Trump and his buddies creating countless frivolous lawsuits to cast doubt on election integrity and to try to flip states that he lost fair-and-square is cheating, even if it was ultimately unsuccessful. (A person can cheat and still lose.) I asked you a question, not Wikipedia. Appealing to 359 citations that you obviously haven't read and I'm not reading is a fallacy, but since you littered the link and didn't mention anything else I'll just take the initiative to debunk one part of it: Voter registrations
In January 2024, two people (one who heads two "election integrity"[246][247] groups and another who ran as a volunteer for the Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee in 2022[248]) sued the Maryland State Board of Elections for access to state voter records.[249] They were represented by the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), which was founded in 2022 by William Barr, Karl Rove, Steve Wynn, and Bobby Burchfield (a lawyer for the RNC and Trump's 2020 election campaign who represented their efforts to halt mail-in ballots in North Carolina during that election).[250] The court literally ruled in their favor that the state violated the law. So you dumped an article you didn't read with 359 random things listed as "disruption." Wikipedia editors... yawn. They make an article like this for you to dump on people, you, an adult, college graduate, send it to other people. I don't know who's worse. They might not actually believe it. Like let's take a break from thinking you're in a debate performance and see how deep you are. You leveled up from 2020 to claim to me 2024 has an article with 359 citations. If you think that is significant, how do you not think Republican cheating in 2024 was worse than 2020? And newsflash, they WON in 2024. Do you actually think Republicans' cheating flipped the election? This is important to either confess, or deny and admit that dropping the appeal to 359 citations was just rhetorical smoke and mirrors. No, I don't think that Trump/Republicans cheating in 2024 flipped the election, but that doesn't mean that their cheating was acceptable. The idea that they won anyway so cheating was fine is a bad take, just like the idea that they lost in 2020 anyway so cheating was fine is another bad take. This isn't anything to "confess", "deny", or "admit", and it's not "rhetorical smoke and mirrors". They shouldn't be cheating, full stop, regardless of whether the outcome was ultimately affected by the cheating. You are superficially dishonest in a way that shouldn't fool anyone. The fact that you have potentially fooled yourself is disturbing. When the discussion is you think Republicans are rigging everything ("currently tampering with muh voting machines") then 2026 (math professor: does it divide by four? presidential year? no?) midterms are definitely on the table. When it comes to me pointing out the things you are talking about do NOT involve planting votes, changing votes, erasing votes, or any such cheating... they're just disputes about the system, lawsuits, whether and how to fix voter rolls, investigating eligible voters, district lines, requests for recounts, audits, maintaining chain of custody, checking the security of machines, how to do mail in ballots, things that Republicans and Democrats both do and both complain about. Then it's: Don't mention those pesky midterms. I'm actually much more concerned about the fact California doesn't and can't verify whether its voters are eligible right now, than I am about... Trump routing hush money through Michael Cohen in 2016? (which I have a concern level of 0, to an infinite number of significant figures, over). You are deeply concerned about things you deride as frivolous lawsuits, that you admit affected nothing (because they were thrown out or whatever it may be). Only one of us is actually interested in secure elections.
I'm not going to be distracted by your derailment towards the midterms for this part of our conversation. I said that Trump cheated in multiple elections, citing the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections. I didn't mention the midterms; you did. I didn't say that I "think Republicans are rigging everything"; you made that up so that the midterm elections would fall under the category of "every election" (which is not a position I'm defending). I also didn't say you can't be concerned about California or individual state elections; go for it. But I'm only going to say this one final time: if you continue to pull this part of our conversation off topic - Trump cheating in the last three presidential elections - then I'm going to stop responding to you about this part of our conversation.
Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This brings back the statement you made earlier, that I replied to. You didn't respond to me. Here it is again, in bold: On October 20 2026 23:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 20 2026 22:43 oBlade wrote:On October 20 2026 21:54 LightSpectra wrote:
We could easily have nation-wide 100% mail-in voting like Oregon has done since 2000. Republicans would never agree to it though since they know people with physical disabilities and people that have to work long shifts on election day are overwhelmingly left-leaning. We could also easily have nice nationwide Georgia-style voter ID.You do not need universal mail-in voting to accommodate people with disabilities or people who work (who are not overwhelmingly left-leaning lol). LS didn't just say people who work; LS said people who work long shifts. Feel free to ask LS for a citation if you want. If every person eligible to vote were to receive a free voter ID (in the mail or via email, whichever the person prefers) without needing to do anything on their part, I'd be fine with that. Would you? Perhaps it's something that you and I could agree on. I didn't respond to that because it was deliberately obtuse from the moment you thought reminding us that the original post said long was a contribution. As though I made my post secretly believing people who work leaned right wing, but people who work LONG on election day secretly lean left wing, and not that the entire claim was made up and none of it leans anywhere at all. You got so caught up tripping on whether one word was copy/pasted that you missed the point. The rest of your question is concern trolling. I don't know what "without needing to do anything on their part" means, so I don't agree with it. A citizen has to do things to vote. They have to do things to get a driver's license. They have to do things to pay taxes. I am not interested in discussing "in theory" with you, I don't need to agree with you how many angels go through the head of a pin, and I have no idea what receiving an ID by email is supposed to be other than a joke troll idea, I'm only interested in the real world. I asked the question in good faith, especially to extend an olive branch, because you're so incendiary and angry and bracing for a fight with me all the time. When I turned 18, the government mailed me a letter that basically said "Happy birthday, now it's time for jury duty". I didn't need to actively do anything to receive that letter. And yes, you need to do things to vote and to get a driver's license; there's no disagreement there. (And given that a vehicle registration card can be printed out via email, I definitely don't think that an e-mail option for voter ID is "a joke troll idea".) I think a free voter ID should automatically be sent to anyone who is eligible to vote, so that as long as they also register to vote (which is already a requirement) and also fill out / send in a ballot (which is already a requirement) and bring their free automatic voter ID (which is the new thing that you partially suggested when you asked for a voter ID, and I added the qualifiers that it should be free and automatic), then that's all that needs to happen. If the voter ID isn't free, and if it's not automatically sent to everyone eligible, then count me out. There are potentially reasons why you can't get your driver's license, real ID, and passport emailed to you and just print them. Something about people not being registered vehicles.
I can just print out my medical insurance card - it doesn't need to be delivered by mail - so it's probably a little more nuanced than just car registrations being for cars and not for humans, but I'm happy to grant you this additional caveat. I'll take e-mail off the table for voter ID, because maybe then we can come to an agreement. How about a free voter ID automatically being mailed to every eligible person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
