National Democrats Want to Remove and Replace Entire Virginia Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats, who are openly talking about packing the United States Supreme Court to basically rewrite the Constitution of the United States, are so panicked by their failure to illegally redraw the Congressional map in Virginia that they are, according to The New York Times, contemplating a move to remove the current Supreme Court justices in Virginia with a new, less legally-minded group appointed by Abigail Spanberger.
NYT: A Private Call Reveals Democrats’ Desperation Over Tossing of Map
Democrats are struggling to respond to a major redistricting setback in Virginia, with some party leaders discussing an audacious and possibly far-fetched idea for trying to restore a congressional map voided… — Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) May 10, 2026
Ah, norms. You gotta break a few norms and laws in order to make that progressive omelet.
This is not some fever dream cooked up by Alex Jones. The New York Times actually reported that Hakeem Jeffries and company held a panicked phone call discussing measures to override the Virginia Constitution through illegal or legally dubious means .
Democrats are struggling to respond to a major redistricting setback in Virginia, with some party leaders discussing an audacious and possibly far-fetched idea for trying to restore a congressional map voided by the court but showing little indication they have a clear plan.
During a private discussion on Saturday that included Democratic House members from Virginia and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, the lawmakers vented anger at their defeat at the Virginia Supreme Court, spoke about a collective determination to flip two or three Republican-held seats under the existing map and discussed a bank-shot proposal to redraw the congressional lines anyway, according to three people who participated in the call and two others who were briefed on it.
They did not land on a specific course forward, and Mr. Jeffries and the other members of Congress agreed to consult with their lawyers about the most prudent way to proceed, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private talk.
Plan #1 is to simply ignore the Court's ruling and redraw the maps anyway. This has the virtue of...actually, it has no virtues at all, come to think about it. It is a pure power grab, led by a corrupt CIA officer-turned-governor and endorsed by the top leaders of the Democratic Party in Washington.
NYT: Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) said in an interview that he supported doing whatever was necessary to preserve the map voters approved in last month’s referendum — including replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices.
Subramanyam: “We have Republican states ignoring… https://t.co/NGQ2lQkG51 pic.twitter.com/weN4U4Hu9a — Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) May 10, 2026
NYT: Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) said in an interview that he supported doing whatever was necessary to preserve the map voters approved in last month’s referendum — including replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices. Subramanyam: “We have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts all together. We know based on that, Republicans would explore every single option possible to move this forward.”
Plan #2 is to replace the Supreme Court through retirements presumably by impeaching them and have a CIA officer-turned-governor replace them with a group of Brazilian-type justices along the lines of Alexandre de Moraes, who just makes up lefty rules as he goes along and jails anybody he likes.
The conversation reflected the desperation and fury that have gripped the party after the state Supreme Court struck down a favorable map that had been ratified by voters. The most dramatic idea they discussed — which would involve an unusual gambit to replace the entire state Supreme Court, with a goal of reinstating their gerrymandered map — drew mixed reactions on the call, said the people, and it was not clear that it would even be viable, or palatable to Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly.
The best way to save Democracy is to go all Bolshevik. Perhaps they could all get competing Hammer and Sickle and Totenkopf tattoos while they are at it, to complete the transformation of the Democratic Party from a crime syndicate bent on pillaging the country through fraud into a full-fledged communist party.
🚨🚨🚨
The Virginia Supreme Court rightly struck down Democrats’ illegal power grab that clearly violated the Virginia Constitution.
But now Democrats are threatening to PACK THE COURT with partisan liberals to ram through their rigged map anyways.
Just more proof that… https://t.co/NceFaU9WJ7 — Virginia GOP (@VA_GOP) May 10, 2026
🚨🚨🚨
The Virginia Supreme Court rightly struck down Democrats’ illegal power grab that clearly violated the Virginia Constitution.
But now Democrats are threatening to PACK THE COURT with partisan liberals to ram through their rigged map anyways.
Just more proof that Democrats never cared about “fairness” or “democracy.” Only their own lust for power.
They already have the economic policies down. Jay Jones is ready to torture his political opponents. They can do their business and then enjoy Luigi: The Musical.
SICK: Musical Comedy About Alleged Murderer Luigi Mangione Coming to New York City This Summer https://t.co/Rnf7NyfoJA — The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) March 4, 2026
Any plans to enact a new congressional map for this year’s midterm elections would require action in the next few days. In a court filing last month , Steven Koski, the commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, said any changes to the maps after Tuesday, May 12, “will significantly increase the risk” of his agency being unable to properly prepare for the state’s scheduled Aug. 4 primary election.
A spokesman for Mr. Jeffries declined to comment.
Scott Surovell, the majority leader of the Virginia Senate, declined to comment on Saturday evening. Don Scott, the speaker of the state House of Delegates, said in an interview that he had not spoken to Mr. Jeffries or members of the congressional delegation about the multistep proposal that came up in the discussion.
That The Times can report this as a politics story and not a scandal tells you where the center of the Democratic Party now rests. The Overton Window has moved so far left, as I explained in my Sunday Smiles essay, that AOC is seen as a moderate alternative to the Luigi Mangione wing, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives is contemplating gutting the Virginia Constitution and replacing its Supreme Court.
We are in the midst of a color revolution, and the Democrats are its architects.
The New York Times describing this as just an “unusual gambit” instead of what it actually is, which is the stuff of third-world dictatorships, is incredible.
Something tells me they’d be a little more animated if this proposal came from a Republican. https://t.co/YfWwo9mHVb — Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) May 10, 2026
UPDATE: I missed this. The New York Times publishes a column by Jamelle Bouie that implicitly endorses this move, telling Democrats to "meet the moment" or move aside.
In Opinion
After the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the results of a state redistricting vote, “the correct response is to fight back in the name of the people,” Jamelle Bouie writes. “Democrats must meet the moment. Or move over for people who will.” https://t.co/6LE0IKJuGv — The New York Times (@nytimes) May 10, 2026
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
118 visitors
People who think this is rational will also claim Trump is the "real" threat to the Republic.
They are intent on destroying the country to "save it."
Trump IS the biggest threat to our nation. How is it possible that you do not recognize this??
Perhaps it's because Trump is out of the field of view for most [MAGA.deleted][✘]
Imagine trying to blow up the whole system because the Court didn't rule the way you wanted.
They are actively trying to intimidate judges and use the Courts the way they did for decades when progressives ruled the SCOTUS.
... without the protection of SCOTUS immunity.
For a few years now, leftists have been saying when they take POWER again, they will stack the Supreme Court, of course with far left leaning jurists that will do their bidding.
I think Trump should take them up on their suggestion and add six more solid conservative jurists....tomorrow.
Leftists can't bitch because it was their suggestion.
'Leftist' this, 'leftist' that. Almost all of your comments are simply attempts to attack your bogeyman 'leftists'. Your posts suggest that you really do not care about issues or what Trump does ... you just want attacks on 'leftists'.
I think we need to rid ourselves of partisan politicians, wherever possible, and continue to illustrate the absurdity of comments like the above.
But if Trump did it, it would be the most egregious on assault on Democracy in the history of the world, etc. et.c.... So Democrats are justified in doing it because Trump exists and didn't do it, if you want to accept Democrats logic...
If Trump did half the things Democrats claim they are going to do given the chance, he'd actually be the King they supposedly don't want.
Your 'cache' of comments are "Lefty," "Leftists," "Left," - it reads like an obsession.
Do it. Add justices to the court (Trump) and see what happens to them when a 'super-majority' of a supermajority is on the court. . .I would love to see conservatives stepping on the toes, feet, and getting struck by asses and elbows trying to agree.
‘Do it.’
Not my position to ‘do it’ We have been hearing LEFTISTS say they want to pack the court because…….Truuuuuump.
Prove me wrong
They are real and they are true ideologues
We just had one win a democrat primary by double digits and she immediately announced she would step aside to help an independent candidate who had the best chance to beat the Republican incumbent.
Lenin would have been so proud of her.
There is nothing lower.
That was what FDR once tried to do. It actually worked for him even though he couldn't pull it of. It was called the stich in time that saved 9. They were totally intimidated by him and began to shirk their duty to the Constitution.
With 4 terms he got to replace most of them and his influence over the Court lasted decades
Over those decades the left got to use the court to enact policies that the American people would never have voted for.
They miss that power.
This is a very strange thing for you to post.
Your posts consistently support Trump and indicate that winning by any means is justified. Worse, you defend his deeds no matter what.
Yet here you have a problem with a D partisan trying to ensure an R does not win. And you (somehow ... ) equate this normal partisanship with Leninism and declare nothing lower.
Truly bizarre.
Here is something lower:
Trump is a disaster as PotUS because he is:
In result we have a PotUS who:
I do not have to 'prove' anything to someone who is intransigent. It is a gross waste of time to lean in to your stubbornness. However, I will do this (for you); I will share what I know, my wisdom, my worldview, and my reflections and you can draw out from them whatever you can properly use to add to your understanding. As for me, when you write something other than (the way I view your comments) "Leftists" - I will do likewise and give that some thought and consideration.
As far as the high court goes. . . wisdom has always informed us that one can get too 'cute' by half. . . and putting a superabundance of the same thing ontop of itself means it most likely will become unstable and 'slip and slide' owed to its own weigh (top-heavy). . . or in the case of justices - too many egos.
Still, go ahead, tell/order Trump and his republicans to stack the court with as many (more) conservatives as he can stomach. . . and we will wait for the soon/adjacent 'heartburn' or 'heart-attack' that it causes the SCOTUS 'system.'
Yes, fighting political fire with political fire is low. . . . Since y'all have Trump's attention, do tell him how low MAGA supporters feel right now.
"American people" is weaponized when used by MAGA supporters, I see. One Wayers!
So you agree that stacking the court is a stupid idea. You might want to tell many on the left that. They have been calling for it for years....now they want to abolish the entirety of the Virginia political set...all because they did not get a verdict they wanted.
Bunch of babies, aren't they?
I don't have to tell anybody sh-t. They are grown like me and it is about time they act like it across the board! Most of them, on both sides, are as old as me or older. When either side or both sides play stupid political interests it invariably creates political "baggage" - none can fully function with, tolerate, or enjoy.
Now then to you: You tried to twist my words to fit your narrative and it failed. This is what I wrote before you improperly quoted me in a chopped up version without its proper context:
As I have shared with you and other MAGA supporters - context and degrees - matter. When a thought is put up for serious discussion it should be weighed properly and not toyed with like a cat's plaything in a deadly game of 'Bite.'
It is proper time to get that into your head. This is not a game. People's lives, culture, and livelihood (or ruin) are in play.
You complained about my use of the word leftists and how much I use it. I offer you a virtual mirror to see a little reflection in the numerous uses of MAGA when describing anyone that does not agree with you. It is no better than what you accuse me of.
Look. MAGA supporters is what I use to identify your collective. If you do not like it do something about it: Identify your Collective. (I am a firm believer in calling other people what they wish to be called. That does not mean that they can whine about a name given, just because!
Furthermore, as evidenced by your segregating and pulling out of the word "MAGA" (without its proper context: "MAGA supporters") you still do not 'get' what this is. Treat other people with the respect you wish for you and yours, and many of lives problems will ease up or even evaporate.
And leftist is what I use (correctly) to identify your collective.
Well, since you have no other identifier for yourselves: MAGA supporters stays.
And so does leftist
Good conversation.
No. Not good. As nothing changed, we did not grow from the 'intercourse.'
It is what it is, nevertheless.
[✘]
Trump says , regularly, that he is going to protect "election integrity". Is there anyone above the age of six that believes that? He tried to steal the 2020 election and he most certainly will try and rig this one.
Your incessant and bizarre claims that this or that Democrat is more of a threat to our republic than Trump is are disconcerting to say the least.
Leaders of the Democratic Party are contemplating removing every Supreme Court justice in a state and replacing them with progressive stooges who will vote for a flagrantly illegal proposal to violate a state constitution.
but sure, pretend democrats like Jeffries care about the rule of law or anything other than power,
what they want to do is get rid of the worst president in the history of our country, or make him ineffective.
"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it"
All it took was the prospect of netting a few house seats for progressives to justify this sort of logic....
do you think trump should be in charge of "election integrity" in our country?
I don’t know what that means nor how that relates to removing an entire state Supreme Court in order to install partisan puppets
I would rather have Trump than Spamberger
I don't know, it looks pretty good.
I don't like SPAM or Gov Spamberger
After watching the Democrats, one would have to have a negative IQ to believe they are "saving democracy"? This instance, they are trying to remove a state level Supreme Court because they didn't get their way. It's just another part of the temper tantrum they've been throwing for the last decade.
Mission accomplished. Biden is out of offce, never to run again.
Cleary certain democrats don't believe in the rule of law.
You mean like the republican run senate? Prevented Obama from nominating a new Justice because it was too close to election time, but then rushed through a nomination from Trump days before the election. Can't get more hypocritical than that.
No. not at all. When did the Republicans remove all the Supreme court justices?
When did democrats remove all the Supreme court justices?
As a Virginian, I am happy with this decision. I do not want to be in a district with Northen Virginia.
Seems the dems are trying to come up with new ways to cheat.
How can you criticize the Ds alone — totally ignoring the instigators of this disgusting partisan cheating?
This terrible assault on democracy would not have taken place if Trump had not pushed (idiot) governors to engage in mid-census gerrymandering.
It is quite easy. The article is mainly about replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices (which is new) and I chose to comment about that.
Do you recognize the cause and effect? This is not an isolated event. This is a result of Trump’s attempt to rig the midterm via gerrymandering.
Do you recognize that this cheating is a result of R cheating driven by Trump?
Do you agree that the dems are justified in replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices because they voted against what they wanted?
Again, that is what I chose to comment about (which you seem to have ignored).
You chose to ignore context so you could be partisan and slam Democrats for something Republicans started. And you have zero shame or embarrassment for this engaging in this intellectual dishonesty.
I chose to comment on what I choose to comment on, the actual article. You know, replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices. Sorry if you don't like it and decide to ignore the comment and go to name calling.
Do you agree that the dems are justified in replacing the Virginia’s Supreme Court justices because they voted against what they wanted?
So...... you're saying just Trump is guilty of Gerrymandering?
Do you Believe democrats have any agency? Or are they just mindless puppets who have no choice but to react to trump in increasingly unhinged ways?
Change the word "democrats" (SIC) to MAGA and then ask yourself that! It actually makes a lot more sense that way...
The article exists in context, but it requires integrity to admit it.
It's not about liking it for me. I expressed an opinion on the honesty and integrity of the comment. I don't actually care that you don't like my opinion. I didn't expect that you would.
I didn't call you a name, but I'm not surprised that you would make something up and accuse me of it.
The article offers little to no evidence that this was even a real discussion, much less an actual plan. Also, you are inventing your own reason here. Justices could reasonably be replaced because they were more partisan than fair, or corrupt, or engaged in legally unsound reasoning. I would not replace a justice just because I didn't like a holding, but as you should now see, that is a very vague kind of justification. The question is why doesn't someone like the way a justice voted.
Gemini
Virginia lawmakers reportedly discussed an "audacious" proposal to lower the mandatory retirement age for state Supreme Court justices to 54.
This idea surfaced in May 2026 after the court struck down a Democratic-backed redistricting plan. The specific age of 54 was suggested because it is the age of the youngest justice who voted in the majority for that ruling. By setting the limit there, lawmakers could theoretically force the entire conservative-leaning majority into retirement and appoint new justices to relitigate the redistricting case.
Key details regarding the proposal:
The Catalyst: The state Supreme Court’s May 8, 2026, decision to void a redistricting amendment that would have favored Democrats.
Hakeem Jeffries' Involvement: U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reportedly participated in a private call where Virginia Democrats floated this strategy
Would you be ok with this plan?
do you realize that districts drawn for racial majority are like gerrymandering?
[✘]
What you “think” is just as partisan and devoid of any consideration of context as what he wrote. Partisan peas in a pod.
Seems like every time you reply to my posts, you invent a position that I have clearly NOT taken.
How about reading my post and asking questions that are not already answered? You know, do the hard work of actually engaging in honest debate.
Look at what I wrote (the context) @4.1:
Clearly I am acknowledging the wrong acts by the Ds (in response).
So how about you acknowledge that and ask a thoughtful, non-trolling, question?
No. Clearly I am against this act. Read what I wrote.
Why would you think that I would not understand that simple concept?
Seriously, where have I suggested anywhere that districts should be drawn using any method other than to divide the state into equal sized segments per the census and to abide by where people live and not make wild-assed shapes for partisan purposes?
Where is there any hint in my posts that would cause you to ask me such a question?
Here is one for you. Do you think that opposition to Trump must be based on partisan politics; do you think it is possible to oppose Trump for cause that has nothing whatsoever to do with partisan issues??
In my view, Trump is not an R PotUS. He is a vindictive, incompetent psychopath who is wholly unfit for office.
Trump has made it PLAIN that he is as slanted to one-side as a down-hlll slope. . . just the way MAGA supporters love it. ONE-WAYERS!
Lol. Yes. you are so desperate to do a "whatabout" you didn't really think that through did you?
Or are you trying to justify everything MAGA does because the Democrats forced them to?
No, I am saying you are projecting MAGA mind onto others...
No, it is an act of frustration. The democrats can't gerrymander as much as Republicans and the recent Supreme Court ruling which finally called out an unconstitutional provision within the Voting Rights Act means that democrats cannot win the redistricting war.
The fact is that the dems have had it their way for decades.
How about just answering the question as it was asked and stop playing what if games.
Trump started this crap, Vic. There is no denying that. If Trump had not pushed R governors to engage in mid-census gerrymandering, this current anti-democratic bullshit with gerrymandering in preparation for the midterms would not be taking place.
And if Patrick Henry didn't try to draw Virginia's district boundaries in 1788 to prevent James Madison from winning a seat we would not be where we are today.
He is the one that started this crap.
A feeble deflection.
If Trump had not pushed R governors to engage in mid-census gerrymandering, this current anti-democratic bullshit with gerrymandering in preparation for the midterms would not be taking place.
Do you deny this?? ⇡
Is my comment incorrect?
Everyone can see your pathetic refusal to acknowledge that this gerrymandering fiasco before the midterms would not have taken place if Trump had not pushed R governors to engage in this anti-democratic practice.
Yes, my comment is correct.
No, it was the owners of slaves, that started this crap with the 3/5ths "compromise".
James Madison owned slaves all of his life.
Slave owners vehemently opposed the 3/5 compromise
AI: "did slave owners vehemently oppose the 3/5 compromise?"
Slave owners did not vehemently oppose the 3/5 compromise; rather, Southern delegates generally supported it as a necessary compromise to protect their political power . While they preferred enslaved people to be counted as a full person (5/5) for representation, the 3/5 ratio was accepted to avoid losing representation entirely, which Northern states proposed . 3/5 Compromise and U.S. Population Data - Population Education
Understanding the three-fifths compromise | Constitutional Accountability Center
Say it isn't so ! /S
Thanks DP!
Lol:
Why? you can't possibly believe that helps your point.
It's hilarious that your AI gives you the conservative curated version. It's twisting facts, and says essentially the same thing my link did, but frames them as objecting as if that makes them better? Not sure why you're trying to defend the indefensible. But it is very funny that you think that somehow makes your point. The fact is that the South wanted ALL slaves to count for their apportionment power but not allow ANY slaves to vote. The North wanted none of the slaves to count for apportionment because they weren't allowed to vote but eventually agreed to the 3/5 compromise. Also, the fact that it passed with bipartisan support proves the majority of Southern delegates DID support it which is clearly not "vehemently opposing" it.
Seems like MAGA and Progressives are in an election arms race. With Trump pushing for hyper-partisan gerrymandering, threatening to 'nationalize' elections and demanding state voter rolls, is it really any surprise that Dems are looking at anything and everything they can do legally to counter the MAGA's Emperor?
I hope it blows up in all their faces and we moderates can pick up the pieces in a way that this shit can never happen again.
Agree totally. Gerrymandering has been going on for so long I am surprised it sook so long to get to gerrymandering on steroids. As long as one side sees an advantage to keep it going and are finding new ways to do it I don't see a resolution any time soon.
Why is it that blue states don't want to show anybody their voter roles.
Why do MAGA oppose gun registration?
You have to pass a federal background check to purchase a firearm, maybe that should be the threshold to register to vote.
Please explain in detail what a gun registration will accomplish, please be specific.
Because the government has no business knowing what I own and they will use that information to try to take my property away.
they have things they want to keep hidden
According to the Constitution it isn't the Feds business.
How about just because they aren’t legally required to do it and they have other stuff to do? How many clerical tasks do you think the federal government should be able to demand of state governments? Just this one thing? 100? 10,000? Should states just be answering bullshit demands from the White House all day long?
Mind you, we’re talking about something that the federal government has no particular right to demand. How much stuff are you willing to do that you don’t have to do? And when you say “no,” are you obligated to supply a good reason?
Conspiracy theories again.
Not a single reason other than “nobody can force them to”
tells you all you need to know
There are so many that have heard like the herd mentality that continues to be one of the many causes of the brain fatalities, for their stripped minds have been groomed while married to the fallacy deluge spread buy bought propaganda outlets that have stoked the your 'fired' fire erh,who has managed to tucker away the actual realities of the facts, that in a couple Billion votes cast here in the US, there have been only maybe a few thousand illegal votes cast, and this is according to the Heritage Foundation, as in 'jeepers' this is not some 'left' leaning think tank.
I have not a problem with some sort of acceptable ID to vote, but it is obvious that since poorer, more pigment individuals, also called Democrats, will be less likely to go through any difficult or monetary hardship inflicting avenues thus reducing the blue vote, and that is their one and only objective. zMake it more difficult, gerrymander mid decade, to cancel millions of black and hispanic voters voices with Jim Crow 2 era reversals set in motion by the activated Un Supreme Court of Jesters that mimicked the bought clown circus, that they are responsible for inviting back to US town USA. The hold up on Smiths cases is what enabled this pos potUS to fool enuff knumb skullz that he would do all these wonderful things, as he has done basically a full opposite, and the only way the GOP can see as to avert the inevitable political backlash from the complete disaster of a Presidents policies, is to rig the elections buy any means they can buy or get passed through the abort of a court that has so fckd America, and it is extremely concerning watching these Repubs andnthe POS 47 attempt any and all ways to try and sway the building wave that should wash these scumbags long out to sea, but, we see there are not limits that which these unpatriotic scum will lower themselves to, all as they disregard morals, ethics, and our Constitution all in a vein attempt to drug US away from our countries once great norms and leadership. Their leadership has sunk US so fast heads are turning in a Linda Blairingly vicious circular motion making many very dizzy and confused, any way I look at 47 and the GOP, we lose d, and this is just another desperate effort for the corrupt cheaters to keep ahead of their inevitable downfall, unless they can make stupid, US All
Let's see Tacos. The democrats are against voter ID, signature verification on mail-in-ballots, voter registration verification and a photo voter ID that over 70% of Americans are in favor of.
The rational mind must conclude that democrats CHEAT.
If 70% of Americans are in favor of something, it would have to include Democrats. I've seen the poll numbers that we talked about here previously. Democrats are against making people jump through extra hoop the Republicans are using to shave off percentage points now that more elections are decided by single digits.
The rational mind would not make declarative statements without evidence.
Yet, how do you explain the GOP....? I guess you've already covered that.
Are they though? Every state requires that a person be identified as a resident and also requires that they be a citizen if they are going to register to vote. So no state objects to the identification of voters. A handful of municipalities allow resident non-citizens to vote in purely local elections - school board, for example. I personally am not a fan of this.
But when you say “voter ID” that sounds like a government issued document. Great, I have no objection except for the wallet space consumed. The problem is that such documents cost money. Unfortunately, by the 24th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, it’s against the law for either the federal or state governments to require payments from someone to vote - aka a “poll tax.” What are you going to do about that?
So Conservatives like to say they want voter ID, but they never will concede the government should do anything to pay for, or otherwise facilitate getting these documents in the hands of voters. They just throw up their hands and say “what is so hard?”
To reiterate, it is unconstitutional to require me to be pay for a document that I have to possess so that I can vote.
Again, it depends on what you mean by this. Every state requires a signature somewhere on mail-in ballots. It could be on the ballot or on the envelope. But what is verification ? How specifically should it work? Because this can vary a lot and no method is magically effective or objectively reliable.
When I vote in person, I sign the registry and some old lady looks at it for a quarter of a second and says “thank you, here is your ballot.” Is she a handwriting expert? No, she’s just a volunteer working a table. So, was my signature “verified?”
On mail-in ballots, you are very often signing under penalty of perjury. But don’t kid yourself, no one is analyzing that signature. They are, at most, checking to see that some kind of mark is present that could be a signature. Real signature verification probably requires a court hearing with sworn testimony, evidence, etc.
How can anyone who supports Trump even think about complaining about others cheating?
It's a combination of projections and deflection.
Pretty easy to connect those dots
Those not among that group shouldn't assume what they would conclude.
A rational conclusion would be based on facts.
Show the underlying facts that illustrate we have a significant problem with voters cheating. You will find, if you actually look, that the cheating is sporadic and insignificant.
The Ds are likely against additional (unnecessary) requirements for voting because these requirements will dissuade voters and they believe that it would affect their voters more than R voters.
If you want to dissuade people from voting, just make it more difficult.
What is the argument that we should wait until we have a significant problem before making it harder to cheat. It seems 70% of Americans feel that makes sense.
Why do the democrats feel their voters are less capable of getting id's than Rep voters?
Frankly, I would be surprised if many MAGA would be able to connect these dots...
Even with the numbers it's just too complicated for some of them, which is likely why MAGA keep ending up with such wild conclusions.
The facts show that rightwing conservatives have never, after years and years of trying, investigations and dozens and dozens of lawsuits, been able to prove any widespread voter fraud. This means their attempts to prevent the non-existent voter fraud IS THE FRAUD. By their claiming there is widespread fraud when there is none, and pushing onerous voter laws intentionally designed to disenfranchise minority voters, they're the ones attempting to fraudulently interfere with our elections. To connect the dots on that doesn't take a genius since it's just drawing a line from A to B.
Uh huh
If it is not broken, it need not be fixed.
Should be obvious.
I do not know. Does not matter.
That is one way to look at it. Not a very good way but a way. Improving before it breaks seem like a prudent idea.
Of course it does.
Rational people do not try to fix a problem that does not significantly exist now, has not significantly existed in the past, with no indication it will significantly exist in the future.
It is not just a way to look at it; it is rational thinking.
Lol...
It is called continuous improvement and is being done in any business that wants to stay in business. Any rational person knows that and knows the government can benefit from it.
Especially since the people that dont want voter id can't explain why it is a problem for dems more than republicans
That is nonsense. Continuous improvement is not used when results are already near a realistic optimal. It is used when realistic, significant improvements can be made. That is NOT the case with voter fraud.
Rational managers focus on areas where significant improvement is plausible; they do not waste resources on insignificant variances from perfection.
Do not just toss out terms in an attempt to baffle with bullshit.
Near realistic nominal?
Insignificant variances from perfection?
Thats funny. S/
It can be used whenever you think a system can be improved upon, especially one where issues could be catastrophic
There is no rational reason not to make our system of voting less prone to fraud.
Why are the dem politicians (and you it seems) so against making our voting system more robust.
Let's connect the dots on the 2020 election...
Biden with 306 electoral votes vs Donald with 232 electoral votes.
So, why are so many rightwing conservatives seemingly incapable of connecting those dots?
But what if those 'rational' rightwing conservatives decide they are both hungry and their hands are cold?
Just try "Bread Gloves!". The 'rational' equivalent of conservative voter fraud laws.
Gee, that's not too much of a deflection.
Yet again you deliver nonsense. Continuous improvement is used on processes that provide an opportunity for realistic improvement. Not processes that are already near optimal. Given we do not have a significant problem with voter fraud (and you have failed to show otherwise, of course), this is trying to fix that which is not broken.
Because, as I have explained to you repeatedly in detail, it is fixing a non-problem.
The other reason, as I have explained in detail, is that making voting more difficult will dissuade voters and the Ds believe it will dissuade more Ds than Rs.
You have no argument, just continued faux obtuseness. Faux obtuseness is an ineffective tactic (except to merely troll).
Nonsense. Continuous improvement is about making things better, not fixing what is broken. Ergo, the name......... continuous improvement.
Nonsense. Continuous improvement is about making things better, not fixing what is broken. Ergo, the name......... continuous improvement.
Yes, you have repeated it several times. Yet you or they can't say why. Why should anyone take their (or your) word for it without any proof? Why are the dem politicians (and you it seems) so against making our voting system more robust?
Pulling out the troll accusation is ridiculous and a dishonest tactic just because you are not doing well in a discussion.
We, voters of all stripes have to be flexible and on our toes, because MAGA conservatives will look to create new 'hazards' to voting through and up to and touching the mid-term voting 'day.'
As for voting, we know that all avenues should be open (like "flood-gates) to let legitimate voting take place.
These people who see a 'boogey-man' voter at every turn are likely telling on themselves, namely, they cheat so others must be cheating as well. (Whether or not it is true).
Deflecting from what? Where is the evidence of widespread voter fraud that I'm supposedly deflecting from?
Rightwing conservatives get hungry, right? Their hands get cold sometimes, right? Just like we know that a relatively very small number of stupid idiots try and vote fraudulently. Do we need to invent bread gloves for those hungry cold handed conservatives? I mean, you could, because the problem does sort of exist. But that would be incredibly STUPID. Just like the laws Republicans are trying to pass that restrict voting on certain days, mail in voting, early voting and voting locations as well as requiring specific photo ID's that certain minorities are less likely to have all to prevent the supposed "widespread voter fraud" of which there is the same evidence as a conservatives hunger or cold hands, you'll just have to "take their word for it". And of course, their word is about as good as the word of the con man they worship so I would never trust a single thing that comes out of their mouths.
Why do Democrats want gun registration?
Would you apply continuous improvement to a process that has a history of insignificant variances from the ideal?
If so, you would be a shitty manager since that is a waste of resources. Applying continuous improvement to the process of ensuring votes are legal when historically we have had no significant problem in this regard is idiotic.
I offered an explanation as to why multiple times. Pay attention. If you want a 100% factual answer, rather than my analysis, you need to find the authority speaking for the Ds on this matter. I doubt such a person exists, but my explanation does seem to correlate with the arguments Ds have been making.
I have explained this to you in detail, and you keep coming back with the same basic faux obtuseness. That is trolling.
They see millions of illegals voting illegally causing Trump, yet NOT ALL of the GOP, from getting elected in 2020 all while it was mostly Republicans who testified in the Jan 6th hearings stating that Trump LOST. Bill Barr on Trumps stolen election claims, "BULLSHIT" I believe is an exact quote. Trump hired a voting election specialist, he also found NO VOTING IRREGULARITIES other than the .00089% or whatever that had NO bearing on the election outcome. How is it we had so little to no amount of voter fraud and stolen elections till Trump LOST ! Where was the fraud in 2016 ? where was it in 2024 ? There is only voter problems when Trump Loses, or someone he endorsed loses, and since he IS A LOSER....WTF should we expect ?
i'll go out on a limb here, possibly so so many US Citizens and others, specifically school children, aren't needlessly slaughtered Every damn day. I am not saying gun registration would solve any problems, but I think we can ALL agree, something needs to change in this country to impede the ridiculous amount of victims that firearms consume every damn day. I am a legal gun owner, and wish to remain as such, but it is obvious why so many want to try and reduce the needless death of so many, or, at least it should be.
It depends on the ramifications of failure. That needs to be taken into consideration and not just ignored.
I was actually a very successful director of continuous improvement in the aerospace industry but nice try.
You are wrong. Simple as that. And you still can't say what is behind the whining against the improvement. Just taking Dem talking points as true is what is idiotic.
No you didn't. All you have done is repeat the dem politician talking points without any explanation as to the validity of those complaints.
You have not given any analysis, just dem talking points as if they were fact without any backup.
Of course not since their explanation is not rational and based on bullshit.
I have rebutted your nonsense in detail and all you do is repeat the same nonsense as if it were fact and accusing me of being obtuse because I don't agree with you. That is trolling.
I have said all I need to say on this subject.
Ridiculous. If a process is near ideal there is no need to do anything other than maintain.
Your 'argument' is absurd. No competent manager would ever spend the resources for continuous improvement on a process that has historically maintained a stable near optimal result.
There is no significant problem with voter fraud in the USA. You repeatedly failed to show any evidence of such a problem. Thus you know there is no problem.
You have no argument, you have offered no rebuttal just nuh-uh bullshit, unsubstantiated claims, and tossing out terms like continuous improvement which do not apply.
You are trolling.
We should expect that it is time to stop letting Trump talk to us (the Public) like we are all fools! It is bad enough that MAGA supporters can't (or won't) control their 'wild, unbridled, and uncorralled' president!
Has it escaped notice that Trump's deals do not manifest as complete. He has not concluded deal-making with Russia/Ukraine war; tariffs have not gained us new trade contracts, and Iran has not 'folded in a matter of days (weeks, or months)!
Can Trump make deals or is the man all Con?!
It is past TIME to let congressional DEMOCRATS have a go at checking the power (plays) of this president by placing constitutional guardrails around him so the harm he can cause this nation as a whole is 'negotiable.'
Here is the thing. You are doing it right. And so are many other gun owners—on both sides of the gun owner/holder problem in our society. That is, you all own and hold guns daily in your possession and nary do we read or view any transgressions of the gun laws in place by you all. I repeat, you all are responsible gunowners (rightly so) on both sides of the gun dilemma we find our country enveloped.
The problem is there is a group of noisy gun owners that do wish to allow for "Lessons learned" from recurring gun VIOLENCE that takes the lives of innocent children—kids and such pay with their lives for the adults collectively allowing those noisy gun owners to wrap "lessons learned" (from each tragedy) to languish "unlearned." That is, a tin ear is turned to the injured and dead to mass gun violence in favor of gun ideology.
I can not think of any other field of endeavor that is "untouchable" and unmodifiable in our society or culture simply because it is a utility.
You of course are trying to rationalize the left trying to keep voting wide open to fraud. What we are seeing now from them is true evil.
We finally have somebody to put a stop to them.
Because I've seen it.
The indoctrinated have a hard time seeing.
It does include Democrats. Most Democrats want voter ID. So the question, again, is why are democrat leaders against it?
Well of course you have seen cheating and other wrongdoing. We all have. Don't be ridiculous.
Irony.
The point I made is that anyone who supports Trump with his outrageous levels of lying and cheating has no grounds to complain about others cheating until they hold Trump accountable.
You addressed nothing from my post. You just accuse me of bias and that’s the end of the conversation.
What evidence do you have that “the left” is “trying to keep voting wide open to fraud?” Our current systems result in little to no fraud. The minuscule fraud that exists is prosecuted with enthusiasm by both Democratic and Republican authorities.
Since you do not address the content of my argument, and do not supply one of your own, it seems like the only “evil” you perceive is simply that someone disagrees with you.
And once again, they were caught.
And trying to rationalize why the republicans made them do it.
They've turned finger pointing into an olympic event.
Virginia Supreme Court only acted on the first challenge to this unconstitutional attempted power grab. That was enough.
.
"We're going to have to explore judicial 'reform' state by state and at the federal level...everything should be on the table as far as I'm concerned."
Can't wait for the "defenders of democracy" to rally behind this declaration of a desire to turn the American republic into a banana republic.