Will Trump Try To Steal The Election ?
Where do you put the odds that Trump will try to steal the mid term elections for the Republicans.
You can elaborate as you like but that is the topic.
=================================================
I'm going to leave things out like limiting mail in voting. That is not really stealing the election.
I'm talking about things like not allowing people to vote on election day, shutting down polling places, seizing voting machines, declaring marshal law, trying to disqualify voters after the fact, dispensing false information in the media about the location and times of polling places, and finally, Jan 6th style violence.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
I'm going with 85 %
Trump will try anything to avoid losing control of Congress.
I have no doubt he will use every method, even ccme up with new ones, to do it. The scary thing is that the SCotUS he owns might go along with him.
Very happy that you didn't phrase it as "illegally" steal the election. For him I'm certain anyway he attempts to influence the returns will seem equivlant to "turn about is fair play", which quite frankly, after the shenanigans the Democrats pulled in 2020 under the guise of Covid safety, is actually a pretty accurate assessment of the situation.
I smell dead fish
... that has already passed thru somebody's digestive tract.
I stopped listening to half-wit sycophants who still believe the 2020 election was stolen from their dear leader a while ago. Their incessant whining of things they've never proven shows what kind of absolute losers they are.
The fraud now is of course disgusting rightwing bigots desperate to cast doubt on the election results in an effort to literally reject the will of the people and install their fascist pig fucking leaders to rule. We must not let this happen, and every patriotic American must stand up and reject these scum bag rightwing conservative fascists attempt to silence us. Once we take back the congress and the senate and allow the courts to hold this out-of-control administration accountable we will finally be back to some semblance of constitutional Republic and can move forward in prosecuting every single one of these fascist criminals who tried to destroy America.
Alot of sixth graders would be proud of all those comments. Adults, not so much. But that is OK, no one takes them seriously
Those are some sixth graders who are staying informed of this criminal administration and rightwing conservatives over the last several years then because they're clearly able to see through the Christian fascist bullshit and support rational thinking over the corrupt actual convicted felon and sexual predator that some supposed 'adults' elected President.
Let's see how serious those hilariously out of touch rightwing 'adults' take it in a few days.
What our final poll before Election Day says about midterms and Trump | PBS News
Democrats Have a Wide Lead in Our New Poll as Trump Slides - The New York Times
Hottest 2026 Midterm Races—Democrats Ahead In Minnesota And Ohio, Republican Leads In Florida
Democrats open up double-digit lead over Republicans days before midterms: poll | The Independent
I'll be grabbing some popcorn...
I am going to see my grandkids.
That's great. Don't pass up any opportunity to learn more about what's really going on in America even if it's coming from those younger than you.
The fear of a stolen election is one that need not exist. Why you ask? Because there is a simple fix. One that Republicans/Conservatives have supported in an attempt to safeguard our elections and Democrats/Liberals have repeatedly rejected.
Voter ID, in person voting Only, except for those legitimately, physically, incapable of making it to the polls.
Very true, like the fear of a monster hiding under your bed. All evidence so far shows there is no monster under the bed, so it is an irrational fear to have and can only really be explained by individuals who harbor irrational fears and low IQ gullible persons.
Perhaps we should just stop listening to the irrational dumb fucks and low IQ persons who keep whining about something that doesn't exist. That seems like the best course of action.
I supposed some irrational dumb fucks could argue "But there are monsters under the bed! See!!!"
So, rational persons have to constantly remind them...
But we get it, some folk are just irrationally scared of shit because when you zoom in to anecdotal supposed 'evidence' of the monsters they do look scary. But rational persons take the time to actually study the issue, understand how very small they are, and realize it is not a problem that should require everyone live in a police State to achieve total dust mite eradication.
[ ✘ ] Because here is a couple of examples of those monsters under the bed as you would like to compare voter fraud to as quoted from BallotPedia ;
"In a 2025 review of the state's voter rolls, Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry announced that ' we have found 390 noncitizens registered to vote in Louisiana. Of those, 79 have voted in at least one election." [
"
"
It only takes one finding of a monster, according to you, to justify being afraid of them. I've given you 2, and there are more, many more. Be afraid, be very afraid. Even 1 illegaly cast vote dilutes every LEGAL citizens vote, and thereby their Constitutional right to choose their elected officials.
Wake up.
you need to post a source link for this so we can look at it
I gave you the source quite clearly. I stated the source as BallotPedia.
You did not provide a link. Merely mentioning Ballotpedia is insufficient.
But from Ballotpedia ( ) we have this (and more):
We do not have a problem with noncitizens voting in state and federal elections. So why are people pushing to address this non-problem?
And don't forget:
Please include the link to any quoted material.
All sources must pass the MBFC test.
In this case it passes but is rated right biased with Mixed Credibility
providing a link, is not just a courtesy to our readers, it is a necessity to protect copyright issues .
Thanks in advance for your future co-operation.
SP, Moderator
Lol, too lame in my opinion.
' we have found 390 noncitizens registered to vote in Louisiana. Of those, 79 have voted in at least one election."
You guys are too fucking hilarious. There are almost 3 million voters in Louisiana. And they've found 79 that voted in at least one election over a 6 year period.
The fact that there are people who seriously believe in rampant voter fraud is insane. They need their heads examined. They are out of touch with reality to such an extreme I have to almost wonder if it wasn't head trauma or something, perhaps a 20 year coma that is leaving them so fucking delusional.
[ ✘ ] Here is your link
I'll be sure and use one in the future.
Like a foot note in a book, the acknowledgement of the source and the applied quotes is more than sufficient to avoid any copyright issue, so spare me the drama.[ ✘ ]
What would be hilarious if it wasn't so ridiculous and sad is how people like yourself, actually believe that a couple of illegal votes by noncitizens is OK. You apperantly have forgotten, or perhaps have never heard of the "hanging Chad" incident. In the 2000 Presidential election, votes in Florida were counted and recounted by hand. Why? Because a single vote could have determined who was to be The President of the United States. So yes, just one illegal vote could dilute the very meaning of millions of votes by being the one that makes a difference. To not ensure that only Citizens cast a ballot is perhaps our most sacred Constitutional right. Voter ID helps ensure that.
The obsurdity of your position is illustrated by the fact that an individual is required to show photo ID to purchase and consume alchohol, yet you don't think photo ID should be required to cast a ballot in our elections. There are over 75,000,000 individuals under the age of 21 in the US, and, by your standards ONLY 5.4 million have reported alcohol consumption. I guess it's unreasoaible to ask for ID to purchase and consume alcohol.
You contend that the number of illegally cast ballots is so minute that it's not worth addressing. Consider this. There are over 242 Million licensed drivers driving over 13.2 Trillion miles each year in America. Yet only around 42 million speeding tickets are issued each year. Are you nieve enough to believe that those 42 million were the only drivers who were speeding? The reality is that they, like the relatively small number of confirmed illegaly cast ballots, were only the ones that got caught.
Again, I say....Wake up.
True. Nothing is perfect, don't ya know.
What is sickening is that people like you are trying to enact rules that make it harder for people to vote based on a non-problem. It is unrealistic to attempt to get to 0 illegal votes. Rational minds recognize that a problem that results in a statistically minuscule level of fraud should NOT force a change in our election system. Instead, the rational approach is to find and prosecute offenders. Given the consequences of getting caught in voter fraud are severe, few people are willing to take the risk just to make their single vote. That is, the upside does not come close to matching the downside.
No that is not it. It is that this minuscule number does not warrant changing the election system.
An example of how rational minds deal with reality. Everyone knows that not all speeders get caught. But rational minds recognize that trying to catch 100% of speeders is impractical. So, practical, rational minds use a system that keeps speeding within acceptable tolerances without seeking 100%.
Extremely well said. Bravo!
maga tries to conflate erroneously registered with illegally voting, since the vast majority of those actual illegal votes in the last 2 decades have been committed by republicans voting for dead relatives or voting from addresses they don't reside.
Thank you, that's probably all you needed to say.
(However that is a generic link to the Ballotpedia main page and useless. We aren't here to waste time looking through Ballotpedia for some related story.)
I have been doing this for 18 years including time with a nationally recognized publisher, which required that even as an unpaid volunteer, I retain a lawyer as does the owner of the site in order to deal with Reuters and Newsweek or others when they believe they have been wronged by a member who altered something or a photo, so I will disagree with your opinion, based on my real world experience.
As to you other comments, you have already spilled red wine on the carpet, insulted your hosts and pissed on the roses so to speak.
Great start to joining a new family..../s
Still funny though
Well said
=
What Verified Sources Show
Evidence on Actual Noncitizen Voting
Voting is a state's right and the state controls the rules, not the Fed.
In every single election, I provided the required photo ID, registration card if requested and signed physically or on an I Pad some oath that I was not lying about who I am or ineligible to vote under penalty of law.
It is the comparison to alcohol consumption or speeding that is absurd, period.
Well, that settles it then. You provide one link to an AI search response, and we all know that AI is infallable, yet claim "3 sources" The hypocrasy is astounding.
What I find incredulous is the glossing over of, and unwillingness to acknowledge the fact, and yes, it is a fact, that even one illegally cast ballot is an affront to every citizen and their legally cast ballot.
And how do you suppose "we" stop a person from breaking the law-by alleging innocent people or groups of people with supposed guilt that has not been proven? More to the point: When you find a person who has properly broken the law you can effectively treat that person to the consequences. . . otherwise what you ae doing is catching "an invisible foe" and seeing "shadows" without substance. Finally, how has stopping an individual or groups of individuals from breaking the law worked out so far in our country? Perfection, I think not. Prosecute with consequences, if, when, where possible.
I joined this site because I thought perhaps it was a place for open minded individuals with varying viewpoints could share their opinions without persecution. Where those in charge could limit their exercising of power in an unbiased manner. Well, your comment seems to imply this is not the case if my comments are regarded as you say. It is truly a shame that those with such thin skins and weak arguments chose cancel culture, as I have experienced today, over intelligent, vigorous debate.
I welcome your vigorous debate. . . let's have a 'go.' Myview, I am ready. I assure you where and when you are correct, I will properly attest to it. . . likewise, where their is ambiguity and some other 'effect' that is not viable to sustain itself. . . it will be met with honest and proper argument/s.
Show your evidence that 7,474 non citizens voted in Virginia or let it go. If you think Ballotpedia has that evidence then copy and paste it.
It is as simple as that.
You failed to rebut JRs post and instead implied that the AI response is wrong (no argument, no facts, just a feeble claim). Then you resort to declaring ~hypocrisy~ as if that were an argument.
Given. I doubt anyone is unaware of the fact that an illegal ballot will nullify a legitimate but opposite ballot. I have yet to see anyone claim otherwise. You are clinging to a strawman.
( Incredulous="unwilling or unable to believe something, or showing a lack of belief" Assuming you meant 'incredible'. )
When did I say it was okay? We have lots of measures in place which is why the attempts are so low and when we do a thorough investigation mere handfuls out of millions are found. Only a fucking idiot with their head stuffed up their own ass would demand we live in a fucking police State and reject all mail in ballots and other onerous bullshit all to stop a couple of illegal votes. We do stop illegal votes, we do a very good job of it. Can any system claim to be 100% foolproof? Of course not, that would be stupid.
Yeah, watched it happen and it was moronic. Yes every vote counts and anyone with than half a brain knows that our elections are safe and secure. The biggest threat comes from the fucking rightwing Christo-fascists trying to take States ballots because they are the most untrustworthy pieces of shit in America, save perhaps for the voters who elected them.
Oh please. deleted anecdotal evidence of the fucking 0.000025% of fraudulent votes makes your moronic claims actually relevant. It's nonsense and anyone who's crying about voter fraud is a fucking lunatic who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Yes, because that's a fact and anyone who can't see that reality should have their heads examined.
That's one of the stupidest most moronic attempts at an example of voter fraud that I've ever heard. The fact that you can't even see how fucking stupid and irrelevant that is kind of amazes me. Nothing about how speeders speeds and are caught is even close to how election fraud and voter fraud is investigated and found. I almost feel sorry for whatever moron came up with such a comparison since I assume you're just repeating it from some dumb shit rightwing media site, but damn that's stupid.
deleted
Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf
Voter fraud claims persist. The numbers tell a different story - WBAL
Voter fraud is very rare in American elections : NPR
[ ✘ ] So to answer your overall question NO! I have no problem with 79 out of 6 million votes being fraudulent if to prevent those 79 votes we would have prevented half a million eligible voters from casting their ballots.[ ✘ ]
I have provided debate challenges and rebuttals. You have chosen to ignore my responses. The very concept of debate is that when you post a claim your interlocutor will post a rebuttal. Not agreeing with you is to be expected. What is also to be expected is an argument based on logic and facts or criticism of your failure to provide same.
I would very much like to provide a reply to your comment, but I have no idea what the point of your comment is/was. I said nothing about "breaking laws" and "prosecuting" anyone. My point is to stop a problem that exists from growing larger by proactively taking simple reasonable measures.
Are you suggesting because our current system isn't perfect that we should throw our hands up and do nothing?
Yeah, that's pretty much what our system of justice currently does. Oh, of course unless you commit a crime in a liberal/progressive jurisdiction. Then we just make an excuse as to why the law was broken and let the offender go.
Eureka! So your 'argument' is lop-sided from the 'get go.' You are not come here to vigorously debate-as your first order of business would be to recognize voting illegally main issue (contention) is the violating of law. You imagine the system needs to be toppled and brought in-line with a select group (MAGA supporters) thinking and no other means of vote collection and counting is 'respectable' and dare I say, legal.
States run elections and they also prosecute violators of state law according to the rules (and decision-making processes) of each one. Have an issue with a specific state. . . take it up with that state. . .see if you can get them to see your point of view. . . and change what concerns you. Showing up here and trying to guilt trip us about it is not going to happen (we don't do guilt trips). We do not run state elections. And we surely do not support one illegal ballot being counted.
Oh and in case you have not noticed, there are people 'talking' about this that will call any vote they disagree with its casting (legal or otherwise) - wrong. . . and of course, we will not agree to abstract discussions about what constitutes acceptable balloting from 'strangers' on the internet.
Finally, if somebody gets leniency from consequences. . . that is just the way the 'cookie' crumbles isn't it? We all have our d'ruthers about this or that law enactment or legal proceeding. ..and yet we know that we are not in-house or a member of a sitting jury that is party to all the facts. . . ultimately, we go along until and unless we can show a wrong has in fact occurred and a judge should have countered accordingly.
Well you know what they say about assuming.
And no, I meant to say incredulous, I'm well aware of it's meaning. Try re-reading my comment.
No, I don't think so. I have stated and stuck to my argument. I don't recall misrepresenting or exagerating anyone elses. In fact, a lot of you and your compadres have tried to misrepresent and exaggerate the fact that illegal votes dilute and disenfranchise every citizens legally cast vote. Now that sounds pretty strawman to me.
I have yet to see anyone, present company excepted as of your last comment, unequivically acknowledge the fact. All the arguments I've heard are in the realm of "it's only a few so what's the big deal".
So what is your solution to making sure that of 180 million+ votes, there is ZERO mistakes? Let's hear it.
It is, we like to discuss issues, not attack one another. I don't own the site and I am not a moderator, but my guess is you are welcome here, just follow the rules.
Try getting back with me when you can make an intelligent, cogent argument without all the vile name calling and profanity.[✘]
You might want to mount that strong debate process. . . now. . . while our minds are "Open." You know the one about. . . windows, opportunity, and etceteras. . . .
Just recently on this thread someone tried, erroneously, to claim I was clinging to a Strawman. But your question is a strawman argument. You are deliberately exaggerating and misrepresenting my position simply because you don't have one of your own. I never once said we could make the system perfect. I only suggested we could make it better and less likely to have illegally cast ballots. You, like so many others seem to want to suggest that if we can't make it perfect we should simply do nothing.
You asked for my solution, I will restate what I have already said. Voter ID. And before you or anyone else starts with the whole Conservatives just want to disenfranchise poor voters disproportionately, just stop. Liberals have no problem mobilizing the troops for protests and demonstrations. They have no problem getting supporters to the polls. If they truly believe requiring voter ID, which is FREE, will hurt their base, then let them focus their energy and resources to make sure all of them get an ID so they can LEGALLY vote.
Are you suggesting that states that do not have voter id requirement are allowing people to vote without any method of identifying themselves to the state/s? Clarify please.
I'll boil it down for those who seem to be too dense to understand basic logic. Those pushing additional voter ID laws are unAmerican scum because they don't give a shit about voter fraud, they are committing it.
Now let's add these facts:
So apparently there are some people who are either so fucking stupid they would risk disenfranchising tens of millions of eligible voters to prevent the 0.000075% of voter fraud, or they've done the research and know that the majority of those disenfranchised vote for their political opponents, so they are intentionally pushing these laws in an effort to rig the election in their favor because they're fucking worthless unAmerican lying cheating scum bags. It seems pretty clear it's the latter.
I think they are just stupid.
You intentionally created a grammatically incorrect sentence which then implies you do not understand the meaning of a common word? A strange method of debate.
I literally stated that illegal votes disenfranchise legal votes. You are clearly clinging to a strawman.
Yes, both can be true. Good grief man. People can understand that an illegal vote will cancel a legal vote and simultaneously understand that the number of illegal votes is tiny and does not represent a problem that needs to be solved.
You get this, right? You see that both can be true at the same time. Right?
What 'reasonable' measures should we put in place to stop these guys?
And if we're supposed to believe that if this many were caught, according to conservative logic that means there must have been thousands more that didn't get caught and could have affected election outcomes, right? Voter ID wouldn't have stopped that now would it? So do you not care about that fraud?
That makes way too much sense.
Making it better is way better than waiting until it gets worse.
No system is perfect. It's about weighing the benefits against the costs. What changes would improve voting integrity vs preventing legal voters their right to vote? There is plenty of data to suggest things are working pretty damned well.
We haven't eliminated speeding, domestic abuse, murder, tax fraud, or any other societal wrong either. Perhaps we should put police on every corner and cameras in every home and audit every tax return?
There's a difference between 'open minded' and 'gullible moron' which is clearly what some rightwing conservatives are looking for. Trying to convince others of shit you have no evidence to back up like widespread voter fraud is simply looking for gullible morons and no, you're not going to find many here other than the other rightwing bigots irrationally scared shitless of Muslims and immigrants.
The fact is, it's hard enough to get eligible voters to the polls, it's tough to get people to believe that their vote will actually matter. Believing that an undocumented immigrant would risk exposure by attempting to vote fraudulently after illegally checking the box on their driver's license application saying they are a citizen in order to get sent a ballot at an address, they had to enter all while as well knowing that could easily get them caught if they are here illegally, all to cast 1 ballot most eligible voters don't even think makes any difference, is just plain stupid. The entire premise is moronic on the face of it and it's embarrassing that there are Americans out there stupid enough to think this happens in any sort of large numbers.
So, this isn't about being 'open minded', it's about having a fucking brain and using it and when some slimy bigots come by and say "Hey, let's make it a lot harder to vote for 20 million mostly minority Americans, college students and women who are likely to vote for Democrats so we can stop the 0.000075% of voter fraud, of which an even smaller number are undocumented immigrant voter fraud. I mean, have an open mind about it...".
Voter fraud studies produce results roughly between 0.0003% to 0.0025% ( e.g. ). That means an estimated 99.9975% of the votes were not fraudulent.
That does not mean there should be no safeguards. But it does mean the response should be proportional to the actual problem.
Imposing more verification burdens on every voter because fraud occurs at such a tiny rate makes about as much sense as imposing an identity-verification protocol on every cash transaction because roughly 1 out of every 80,000 U.S. banknotes is estimated to be counterfeit—about 0.00125%.
The solution to stopping illegal voting is prosecution and for that those doing the perpetrating of illegal ballot signing have to be identified first - not imagined.
That comment is speaking beside the point! Perfection as we all know is not possible with humans (at least we accept that as a proposition). Because people being people they will do what. . . they. . . 'do.' So do not write like someone who is 'new' to this concept.
The conservatives have decreasing voting numbers and so they are desperate to do something-anything (hook or crook unfortunately) to get liberal numbers down. It's a survival "instinct." One taking a unethical approach to politics (making politics sickening for the masses) and yet they hope no one notices or can do anything about it. Exception: Comply.
They know that, they just also know that if they act all obtuse about it they can add laws they know will make it harder for Americans they hate to vote. This is all about preventing eligible Americans they despise from voting, it has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants voting. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe in that after looking at the facts. Even if voter fraud was happening 1000X more than all investigations so far have found that would still be less than one tenth of a percent. You don't think they're stupid enough to actually believe it's happening 1000 times more than investigations show do you? No, they can't be that monumentally stupid because that would require believing that our investigators, many their own republicans, must be unbelievably incompetent.
So, if they're not stupid enough to believe it's to prevent the virtually non-existent undocumented voter fraud, then you're left with the only plausible reason for wanting to restrict voting which is to prevent eligible voters they disagree with from voting. It's that simple. With no morals, no shame, no spine, there's nothing to keep them from keeping the lie going so it's not like they'll ever admit it, but anyone with more than half a brain can see it.
No, because even then it would require proof and not just imagining.
I asked you a question, I didn't make any argument.
When all else fails, call out the Grammer police. Don't know why you think it was grammatically incorrect, and quite frankly don't care for you to give me your assessment.
Yes you did. And it is very clever of you to block quote only the paragraph of that comment which suits your narrative. Allow me to share with everyone the rest of what I said, acknowledging that you were the one exception with your comment I was replying to ;
Since the conversation at that point was between you and I, ....Present Company excepted.... refers to you, in case that concept escaped you.
No, no I don't.
You see that both can be true at the same time. Right?
If we were talking about Schrödinger's cat here, I absolutely would say yes. But we are not. We are talking about the FACT, which you say you agree with, that a single vote can determine the outcome of an election, and that just one illegally cast ballot cancels out a legally cast ballot thus nullifying that citizens Constitutional right to elect his/her Government officials. This FACT has been exemplified in recent history. As I have already referred to, the 2000 National election is a perfect example of why every single vote matters, and just one illegal vote could change the outcome. In a State where 5,963,110 votes were cast, the winner won by 0.009005% .
You get this, Right? You get that you can't have your cake and eat it ,too, Right?
🥱
In theory your point has validity (every vote matters), in practice, where millions of votes MATTER MORE a few errand or illegal votes should be 'weight' for impact and 'counting the cost' seeking to find a course correction.
And by the way, voter id, will not accomplish or counter what people INTENTIONALLY trying to throw a wrench into the voting process 'wheels' - humans being the imperfect creatures that they are will find alternatives ("workarounds") seeking to make the outcome they seek real ever so.
What will be accomplished by voter id. . . is many people unwilling or practically unable to afford to buy or time effectively acquire the ever 'moving' type of id that state and federal authorities SELECTIVELY enact will be locked out of voting in the 'immediate.' (For instance, same day voting using alternative voting documents currently in practice.)
We all 'get it'. What you're apparently not getting is the fact that conservatives answer to supposedly fix that tiny percent of voter fraud which could potentially tilt a Presidential election by 0.009005% would likely disenfranchise tens of millions of American citizens. It is quite literally throwing up to 20 million eligible voters out with the bath water. It's stupid, its reckless, and it would only be suggested by someone who is either really really stupid, or someone who has a vested interest in making sure those 20 million eligible likely Democrat voters don't get to the polls. So, you can drop the act with all the "Every vote must count! Even one fraudulent vote is too many!" if you're going to actively campaign to prevent tens of millions of Americans from voting which is what pushing the voter ID laws were written to do. It's silly and no one believes it.
We can see the roots of the voter ID laws going back decades.
It's not a mystery. They've been caught red handed numerous times now. But that's what we should expect coming from the party that elected a convicted felon and admitted sexual predator and close friend of pedophiles President.
The hanging chads were a technical issue, not an illegal act.
Every election, mail in ballots are discarded due to numerous compliance issues.
Multiple people are made to use provisional votes never knowing ( varies by state) if their vote was counted.
Some mail in and overseas ballots arrive too late to be counted.
Your vision of the perfect national election does not exist.
Then look it up and stop whining about it.
You seem incredulous (for illustration) that both of these things can be true at the same time: that a single fraudulent vote can effectively nullify a valid vote, and that voter fraud can still be such a rare occurrence that it is not a significant problem.
Voter fraud would be a problem if it were more than an extremely rare occurrence. It is, however, extremely rare. Rational people do not try to solve problems that are extremely rare.
For elections (typically very small and local) where a single vote or a few votes made a difference, those cases are handled as exceptions. That is the practical way to deal with this.
[deleted][✘]
All hyperbole. Everything you said is nothing but conjecture, hypotheticals and hyperbole. Where's your proof?
Voting is not just a right, it is a responsibilty. All these 10 or twenty million hypothetical people you refer to need to do to be able to exercise their right and responsibility as citizens and vote is, one time, not every day, not every week, not every year, not every election cycle, but one time, go and get a FREE VOTER ID and then show up on election day and cast their ballot. That's it. Couldn't be more simple. I've seen sieves with fewer holes than your arguments.
Is it? Really?
I just had a fairly lengthy conversation with my editorial and research assistant ChatGPT. Here isthe culmination of that project:
Link 2
So say those desperate to disenfranchise eligible Americans they disagree with. Only a complete moron would buy what you're selling.
Those are the facts.
Total and complete bullshit. It is far more difficult than that for millions of Americans but it's not the first time disgusting scum bag bigots have lied to try and keep minorities from voting and having a say in American politics and it won't be the last. What's changed is fewer and fewer people are listening to these tired conservative liars. Those pushing onerous voter ID laws are unAmerican scum trying to keep their fellow Americans from voting, it's that simple.
No need to fix problems that don't exist.
Or maybe we are we at the optimal point already and more mucking around in things wouldn't be what makes it worse.
And there in lies the fallacy of your argument. Because the problem exist as evidenced by the facts. There have been instances of illegally cast ballots. Granted, the known instances of voter fraud is small relative to the number of ballots cast. However, the known number of speeders is small relative to the number of drivers on the road. It is more likely than not that in both cases, the number of fraudulant votes and the number of actual drivers speeding is much larger, we simply are not looking hard enough to catch more of them.
Thank you for supporting my POV with yet another "it can be" hypothetical. Not that it is, just that it could be .
Not everything is easy in life, especially in a Nation which values freedom and liberty. Not everything can be handed to you for nothing like in a Communist Nation. Sometimes some personal sacrifice is needed to enjoy our Constitutionally granted rights.
As an example, I would like to ask you if you subscribe to the same rightious indignation when it comes to a lawful citizen attempting to exercise his or her 2nd Amendment rights? Someone, who is exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applying for a Carry permit, must pay a fee in order to do so. The average for these fees can exceed $500. Do you find that to be equally aggregious and prohibitive of their rights?
Got it.
Thanks for the lesson in soul and self, but where does it say it shouldn't be easy to vote in the constitution? Fuck the tired bigots who claim there is some need to 'work' for your vote, that's fucking poll tax bigoted bullshit on its face so fuck those smarmy mother fuckers pushing that kind of lame horse shit.
I've worked since I was 14 and am still working and love capitalism so anyone who says its communist to make it as easy as possible for citizens to vote can get the fuck out of MY country.
On the 2nd amendment question, where does it spell out this for guns?
It was spelled out for voting. Just to add to that however, I am not for gun fees, I am for background checks and a universal gun registry, but I do not believe the government needs to be taking money from gun owners as a fee or tax. I do believe that gun ownership should require liability insurance for the damage you could cause with your gun so gun owners would have to buy a policy from a private carrier that would cover them for the potential bodily injury or property damage they may cause with their gun.
And you talk about hypotheticals? Your logic presumes guilt and demands others prove themselves innocent. That is antithetical to the ideals of freedom our country stands on. We have protections in place to catch both illegal voters and speeders and unless you can point to specifics (and not hypotheticals) it's the way it's going to be.
Here is how to address your concern.
Get some facts. Verify and analyze them. If there really is a problem, then formulate a practical, proportional solution.
You are speculating (absurdly) that the extremely rare cases of voter fraud are just the tip of some enormous iceberg that has silently been affecting the outcome of major elections.
Show us the facts rather than parrot Trump's bullshit.
And YOURS, nothing, NOTHING is 100% when you are talking hundreds of millions of ANYTHING. People make mistakes in life, and that is a FACT.. Even in voting, people make mistakes and their vote is counted, that's called LIFE. Fucking get over it already.
Bingo...
Complete ignorant nonsense. When an investigation of votes occurs they check each ballot and cross reference them against registered voters and signatures which have data showing how they were registered, where they live, who they are, and so during these close inspections they find irregularities and ineligible votes (people who thought they were eligible but weren't for one reason or another like felony records etc.), that's where most of the found 'voter fraud' comes from, but yes, there are a handful of apparently willful fraudulent votes found out of millions.
Now let's compare those facts about how voter fraud is found which is not some cop standing by the voter line looking for undocumented immigrants. That would be silly.
No, cars are pulled over depending on who is on duty, where they are scheduled to patrol, whether they are looking up or not, whether they feel like going after a specific speeder or not, they see everyone around them making moving violations all day long and they could pretty much pull anyone over at any time for one reason or another. So, there is no rhyme or reason why a person might get a speeding ticket, might as well just call it bad luck.
Now, imagine if the speeders were caught the way voter fraud was, and the government had access to your vehicle's speedometer logs and GPS and just gave tickets to anyone that went over the speed limit. How many Americans do you think would be getting tickets in the mail?
The comparison is nonsensical. If you investigate speeding the same way voter fraud is investigated with every vote being checked, sometimes multiple times by both parties, every driver in America is guilty.
So, saying "Well for every speeder we catch, 1000 get away" makes sense based on how a speeder is caught. Trying to claim "For every fraudulent vote we catch, 1000 get away" would only make sense if the way they are found was the same. Clearly it is not, thus making the attempted example total, very likely intentional, bullshit. Go try and convince rightwing conservatives of your backwards logic, they're obviously far more gullible.
You my friend are in for a long ass wait... Snickers bar?
Do digress, other than those 'destroyers' of vaunted capitalism: free education, local transportation and medical assistance what else is handed out for gratis in the 5 nations still clinging to a dying dogma other than wee Red Books?
You're right of course.... Here..
He doesn't seem hangry...
Well, there you go. . . this midterm election is happening and no one is taking further action/s blind that will disenfranchise voters in the system already established.
Is the "fee" considered a poll-tax? Actually no! A poll tax is barred by the 24 amendment and the Voting Rights Act. The 'carry' fee is for application, background, and safety training, plus.
Can you see the difference now?
This just keeps getting easier with every post.
So let me see if I've got this right. You think that it's not enough that a voter ID is free, keeping in line with the prohibition of a poll tax. You believe that prohibition stretchs to the cost incurred to secure an individuals personal documents which they need anyway for much more than voter ID such as a Birth certificate that can cost $50 on average. As I pointed out earlier, gun owners incur costs that far exceed that and many of those are for documents and not Government fees which you say you oppose. And you don't have an issue with requiring gun owners, attempting to exercise their Constitutional right to bears arms, to incur costs for insurance premiums, which on average would likely exceed, by a large margin, that same $50 average for a birth certificate. And those premiums would be incurred every year , not just once. That's called Hypocrasy.
I would go into the absurdity of firearm insurance but I'm sure that would be seen as off topic so I'll let it go for now.
No. Next question.
I can not prove a negative. I can not provide you with the large fraud numbers which may or may not exist if they haven't yet been discovered. What I can do, and have already done, is provide you with the fact that voter fraud does in-fact occur.
Years ago, law enforcement caught drunk driver by observing erratic operation of a motor vehicle. Today, to protect more people, better, they have implemented proactive methods such as check points. Voter ID is simply a check point to stop fraud before it gas consequences.
You would choose to turn a blind eye to the potential theft of our choice of our officials. I choose to demand we do more to prevent it.
Why not? Please elaborate.
No, what you are proposing is supposing should override facts as told by fifty states officials . . . and this is particularly keen because for instance, Trump's DOJ is sending its watchers to 'watch" predominately democratic jurisdictions and not fully observe all jurisdictions equally :
You do not have to prove a negative. Just back up your speculation.
You are speculating (absurdly) that the extremely rare cases of voter fraud are just the tip of some enormous iceberg that has silently been affecting the outcome of major elections.
Show us the facts rather than parrot Trump's bullshit.
Your fear is unfounded and irrational.
You are just parroting Trump's bullshit.
The rest of your rebuttal is complete trash, but that was kind of funny.
Nothing you said changes any of the facts I presented about voter fraud or the ridiculous laughable analogy.
Tomorrow grew up:
I watched that episode. She is brilliant.
Indeed!
One mean g'ul - rocking a red dress. Fierce!
He's already started trying. The question should be, "How much will Trump fuck up the election?"
California today received a notice from the DOJ claiming that they sent out ballots to non-citizens and gave the state 48 hours to prove that they are citizens.
If I were the AG, I'd send a selfie flipping them the bird... and nothing else. The DoJ has no jurisdiction and the law would dictate it's up to the DoJ to prove their claim, not the other way around.
I like your style
This is why I wouldn't even entertain these pricks:
we've already passed laws to protect our election results from trump and his cabinet of dick suckers interfering in colorado, and if they want to get froggy, it's a minimum of 60 miles in any direction on foot for the christo-fascist's hasty retreat to any hope of safety ...
Depends how fast and loose you define steal and if whining about it is considered trying to steal.
At 150%.
Trump, Elon, Putin, the Postal Master, Republicans in the Senate, and the Dumb Arse from Pennsylvania.
We are in a WAR with corruption, Trump, Putin, Kim Jong Un, and others.
It is inevitable.
Hopefully our courts will rise above the attempts at hijacking the election and quash the threat. The results of some contests will be weeks in adjudication. Once decided, they still may refuse to seat the winners, again throwing it to the courts.
Contentious times ahead to be sure and the possibility of violence is frighteningly real.
He fails at every attempt to convince non-sycophants to believe him over their own eyes and ears. This will be no different.
Should he succeed, then blame the intelligence of the voters, because he is BOUND to do anything in his power to try to save his ass.
Should he succeed
… it will be because he cheated. His popularity is far too low to justify majority support. There is nothing beneath this creep, and power mad sycophants are the only things clinging to it and the intense stench of grift around it.
My apologies to Hal and JR for having deleted my comment before first making sure there were no replies to it. I tried to replace it but it would not let me. Basically what I said was that should he succeed, then IMO the fault would lie with the lack of creative thinking or even a modicum of intelligence on the part of the American voters.
IMO, even if the voters should succeed in achieving a Democrat-controlled both houses of Congress, those who are capable of invoking the 25th amendment to totally prevent his causing his nation's humiliation and decline in the world STILL won't have the balls to do it.
Buzz, the fault does not lie with VOTERS!
It is selfish, corrupt BILLIONAIRES and TRILLIONAIRES who want to destroy our democracy to install a handful of UBER RICH pricks like Elon and Trump who want to convert America to a CEO operated goverment.
Peter Thiel and others are leading the onset.
Surely the UBER-rich are somewhat outnumbered by everyone else. But what worries me now is the billions being spent by those UBER-rich to keep the Republicans leading Congress. It's a sad thing when people's brains can be bought by masssive advertising.
I think early voting has opened here in Arkansas. I hope so, because I have Friday off and want to vote. If not open, I can do it in 2 weeks on my next Friday off.
I believe the chances of him trying to subvert this election are pretty close to 100%. I say that because his mind is so far gone he won't believe that he lost Congress or that people hate him that much. I don't know what form his stealing will come in, but martial law is a pretty good bet. As are intimidating tactics at polling places. Fortunately I live in a blood red town so I don't see anybody trying to strong arm me because as white as I am they "think" I'm going to vote red.
my family and I are having a ballot party this weekend because ballot measures and constitutional amendments is the only possible way fascists, racists, and thumpers can enact their agendas in blue colorado now. this is due to the way special interests have required these issues to be written in confusing legalese for the ballot and to fool morons like most maga voters to vote against their best interests. fortunately, one of the ballot issues this year is amendment 85 which requires all future ballot issues written to be understood by anyone with an 8th grade level education, helping the dwindling number of maga morons in colorado to understand what they're actually voting for.
Isn't Colorado completely controlled by Democrats, you voted for Harris by 54.1%.do you consider the Democrats of Colorado morons?
Colorado has been controlled by dems for about 20 years and it is now one of the most expensive states to live in while having some of the worst roads in the nation and high crime rates. Dems running this state place illegals and criminals over law abiding citizens and keep getting voted in, which is utterly moronic.
how many felony convictions does kamala have? colorado morons are well represented by maga republicans running for national office from colorado again this year, and the republican candidate for governor victor marx is well known religious scam artist, lying trump dick sucker, and former teabag rambo ...
statistically, undocumented immigrants are more law abiding than maga republicans, especially the last 10 years ...
It’s more systemic than just maga Republicans. That party is a magnet for corruption.
Lets see those stats.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
those would be 3 of my brothers-in-law
Didn't have an answer to your own post of why the Democrats in Colorado are morons, other than to deflect to Trump!!!!!!!
Is Trump fit to be PotUS in your mind?
I've seen multiple articles today saying Trump wanted Google to rename the Atlantic Ocean after himself, or America... (shakes head) I'd like to see if he's been tested for early onset dementia.
he's sundowning every afternoon in the oval office due to his erratic sleep schedule.
toss in rage tweeting in the wee hours, raging at reporters at every opportunity, his poor diet, traveling nonstop to do his carnival barker act at rallies, and incompetently trying to juggle the duties of his office. it hardly leaves him time for grifting, political persecution, selling pardons, and violating the constitution and his oath of office.
trump is what happens when you pair a giant asshole with the main stage and power
Isn;t that what all those cognitive tests that he brags about are for?
Are we sure he's actually taken them?
I think it's truly hilarious that so many capitalist defending conservatives blame high prices in a specific locale on supposed "illegals and criminals" and not supply and demand as one would expect in a capitalist country. People wanting to live somewhere like Colorado or California are the prime reason for higher prices. Why is this not obvious to any moron with even a smidgen of economics education?
I just got back from a trip to Disneyland with my daughters and spent a bit of time in the shops in Downtown Disney and guess what! The prices there were significantly higher on the same product that just outside the security checkpoint would cost half as much. Why? Because of where the store is located and the fact that millions of people want to go there and be there annually. It's not because Disney has to spend so much on security. Disney and all the vendors there price their shit according to what the market in that exclusive area can bear, that's it.
Democratic States that do spend funds on making the State better for everyone do end up spending money on the homeless and undocumented immigrants because believe it or not, they also want to live in these places. The States no one else wants to live that have rock bottom populations don't have many if any undocumented immigrants even though it's so cheap to live there. So, if you make your State as unfriendly to outsiders as possible, reject innovation and change, stay stuck in your ways because that's how you 'always done it', you won't have many problems with lots of people wanting to move to your State which means prices on things will stay low, just like they wanted, so they're the winners, right? /s
Sorry, but I'd much rather live in a State that embraces innovation and immigrants, a State people want to be in, live and work in, like Colorado and California than to live in a dusty tired old "Don't tread on me!" town in the Midwest somewhere even if it is cheaper to register your cars or buy a gallon of gas.
Supply and demand says that those who want to live in Disneyland have to accept that they'll likely get paid more but the cost of living is also going to be higher. If you compare California with South Dakota you'll realize that the poverty rates are almost identical, so it doesn't really matter which State you live in, you're going to have about the same percent of poverty. The reality is that capitalism needs a certain percent of poverty to function. You have to have the 'have nots' that people worry about becoming to motivate the legs of the capitalist stair climbers. It's what conservatives have been claiming they love and support for years, forcing people to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' so to speak. God helps those who help themselves and all. It's simply the 'lesser of two (or more) weevils' Americans have chosen, and high prices in places people want to live is one of the prices we pay for it. And frankly, I'd much rather be poor in California than poor in South Dakota if I was forced to make a choice.
Let's see links ands citations proving your claims. Otherwise we can discount them as being ficticious.
Also, since I live in Colorado, I can state that the roads down South in El Paso county are in generally much worse shape than other Colorado locations that I've seen.
colorado voters need look no further than the candidates that republicans have offered up to state and national elected office for an explanation as to why local wacko maga-thumpers are the laughing stock of the political process.
I live in a pretty red area. My wife and I stand out like a sore thumb where we vote, since we comb our hair and don’t wear a dirty Mickey Mouse teeshirt with pajama bottoms and fuzzy slippers to vote.
The area I live in is a blue as can be. Last November when we had the special election here in California for the one ballot initiative to allow redistricting to counter the move in Texas, which won by a landslide, there was a big line waiting to vote and people kept coming. I could not believe it and I could not have been more proud of everyone.
Hooray for gerrymandering! /s
I couldn't believe that Prop 50 had passed either. Seems Newsom's PR group was successful in pushing his hypocritical, but not surprising, stance on gerrymandering.
Before the November 2025 ballot measure, I had posted several comments on this issue like the one HERE . Even the majority of the members (Republicans and Democrats) of the now silenced California Citizens Redistricting Committee were against the measure. Seven of the 14 members opposed it, only 3 supported it and the rest were undecided. Former chair Jeanne Raya and prominent former commissioner Cynthia Dai (a Democrat) were also strongly opposed to the measure.
As I pointed out then:
The people of CA decided in 2008 (Proposition 11) to establish the California Citizens Redistricting Committee (CCRC) to combat the prior rampant gerrymandering by the State legislature in California. The people again voted by a vast majority to expand this to the drawing of congressional district maps in 2010 (Proposition 20). And now Prop 50 seeks to bypass the commission to use redrawn maps created by Democrats in the State legislature, specifically as supporters will admit, " to counter aggressive gerrymandering efforts by other states ". I submit that this position is about as hypocritical as any in the political arena and here is why:
1. The CCRC was established form the start to combat the rampant gerrymandering in California by many in the State Legislature in the decades prior. It was heavily opposed by the Democrats in California like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, despite the support of the people, especially Prop 20. They even tried to undermine it in 2011 ( propublica ).
2. Gerrymandering is a political game that has been played in many states by both parties for decades. I think that what the Republicans have been accused of doing in Texas since 2021 (still being argued in court) is every bit as egregious as what California legislators actually had been doing for decades prior to 2008. I submit that gerrymandering should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
3. And now here we are in 2025, and we have the POTUS cheering on likely gerrymandering in Texas and we have the Governor of California driving a clearly political gerrymandering effort in California despite a previous mandate from the people of the State to end that. If we are to buy Newsom's argument, " We cannot unilaterally surrender ", then we are part of the problem, IMHO. If we agree that gerrymandering is wrong, and we want fair district maps and fair elections, then we MUST reject any calls for it by anybody for any reason.
It will certainly be interesting to see how Prop 50 will go over in California this November. Cal-Matters had a pretty good article on it here: Calmatters
How? By voting for Republicans who have shown that they are unwilling to defy the monarchical aspirations of Trump? (I did not read the linked article.)
Trump has, over the course of the past 50+ years shown his disdain for most rules, unless he could bend them to his designs.
Do you not see the larger problem at hand?
Indeed I do. Hence my concern that Trump-like tactics don’t propagate further into the future. My concern extends far beyond my disdain for Trump.
When this happened last year, there was no inkling of the future. There was just the knowledge that he had told all of the Republican controlled states to gerrymander their voters.
And they immediately sat out to do so.
The SCotUS was no help at all. The majority said that partisan gerrymandering was just fine with them.
I am with you on the Trump Tactics not propagating into the future, and I realize fully that a double edged sword cuts both ways, but I fail to see how the President commanding his faithful followers to cheat in the name of MAGA (under such a closely contested national electorate), could cause others to not react to keep the entire system from being controlled by one person.
I surmise that you are concerned that the gerrymandering will not be set back? A year ago when the vote happened I would not have been concerned with that, I was more concerned with the existence of the America I grew up in.
I have known about Trump for a very long time and little of what I know is good. His business model creates or buys a company, extracts everything it can from it, then discards it in bankruptcy: Just what he is doing to the country.
I do not feel that we can wait for this to all work out, because he is pushing so hard to make it not work out. Thankfully, circumstances have occurred that make this seem less likely, but there still is a chance that he might somehow pull his fat out of the fire. If he does, the country will go through many years of pain.
Irregardless of Trump blubber burning like the eternal flame in asszhat he be, we, as in US, of A, holes in our pockets pay in for rockets that will have US a tempting to rebuild our once solid credibility in the whirled, ever spinning a way out of control, cause Russias' mole, Putins burning man coal, ain'y a gnat King, more like a naked one who bears his soul via his projections that have left very deep infections with some possibly never actually being cured, cause the 'man' not cured of tiny finger in ears advice, need not add another vice, his squad quite odd has blown US up for a decade or two, and that's if we straighten our once envied world leadership, cause Trump has sunken that ship, and we sway slowly, lower and lower, and it will take a lot of time to try and make good on all the crime, the grifter in chief, sitting BullSHitter, has left a bitter taste in more than just a Stormy Daniels of Jack, as the big Smack, has pist off the world, and caused boots to curl, Wizard of the OZ style, with a White Power House of Disdain on top of one 47 insane, even in the membrain
That is clearly not what I meant by my comment. Your comment is a disingenuous attempt to put words in my mouth to support your position. Not a good look.
Your words were put in writing by you, not in your mouth by me. I simply reused them sarcastically to make my point and then I supported my own position. You needn't worry about anyone thinking you are supporting or even acknowledging my position, that would certainly not be a good look, eh?
Just so that we are clear, my position is that none of them, not Trump, not Newsom, not any of the State legislatures past and present should be able to get away with blatant partisan gerrymandering, especially mid-term term gerrymandering that oversteps the very safeguards that were put in place to prevent it. All of it should have been stopped as it erodes our election process and creates distrust in our representative form of government. How/when does this partisan fighting fire with fire end? Who will finally put an end to it and stand by their principles like many in the CCRC did when Newsom first put the Prop 50 measure on the table? Read the articles and what they said in opposition to the measure and tell me how they weren't absolutely correct. If our principles dictate that we promote fair and democratic elections without tampering, or enabling fraud or gerrymandering, then how in the hell does encouraging it or engaging in it ourselves represent a morally principled position? I get it, we all hate Trump and his tactics, but we should all be fighting to see that those tactics aren't successful, not using those same tactics in return just further destroying the institutions we seek to save from him.
I am sorry if you think I was trying to put words in your mouth, that was not my intent. I was simply trying to present another rational and reasonable viewpoint on this gerrymandering issue.
Aren't you? Shall we just let it grow as the two parties use it as a weapon every time they gain and want to maintain that power? Here in California the people did decide to put an end to it with the formation of the CCRC in 2008/2010, and now that has been trampled over. How do you think it is going to end? In a prolonged highly partisan atmosphere, how does fighting fire with fire do anything but eventually burn the whole free and fair election house down?
How do you think governing by executive order to bypass Congress and the will of the people is going to end? That has been growing for the last several administrations as well, as has the pardoning and now even pre-pardoning of friends and political allies by an outgoing administration. How long will out of control spending, lax oversight, and fraud be sustainable? These trends will become dangerous especially when a person like Trump grabs the wheel, but do you really think they are going to end once Trump is gone if we keep doubling down on those tactics from one administration to the next? Not if we don't speak up, take a stand, and do something about it.
We either stand by our principles, or we admit that they don't amount to a hill of beans, IMHO.
Concerned? Slightly.
It is my understanding that the CCRC will be reinstated after the 2030 Census. I believe this is spelled out in the language of the Proposition itself. I am not so sure that "trampled over" is the exact description: the Prop was proposed by the legislature and passed by the people 64.4% to 35.6%. If you want to make the CCRC a permanent feature of the state, then you shall have to make it part of your state constitution. Anything else will be temporary and subject to tampering. Even constitutions make certain assumptions which are not always followed.
Governing is messy. Democracy is messy. I have hope that we will not continue to double down. Something needs to be done about the massive amounts of money flowing into elections, and people who are corrupt need to go to jail. The most important thing to do at this juncture is to stop Donald Trump and associated thieves before we have no nation left to complain about.
We have a dysfunctional national legislature filled with ideologues and sycophants. There is no compromise on the most important issues so there is standoff or "reconciliation" one sided bills forced through.
Thomas is right though, the first order of business has to be getting rid of Trump. Everything else is secondary right now.
The CCRC was established through a constitutional amendment. When California voters approved Proposition 11 (the Voters FIRST Act) in 2008 and later Proposition 20 in 2010, these citizen-led initiatives did amend the California Constitution.
So “trampled over” is a perfect description of what Prop 50 did. Once the precedent is set putting partisan manipulation ahead of constitutional principles, even if you believe it is only temporary, how likely do you think it is that it will not be used again? Time will tell if the CCRC will be back in 2030 or if another “crisis” will be used to sell fear and further partisan manipulation. We will see.
Thanks for the discussion Thomas.
Time and the end of his term will get rid of Trump. In the meantime, we can resist and push back on his destructive partisan tactics. Copying and doubling down on his very tactics will keep the damage he does alive far beyond the end of his term. It is making his way of operating immortal. Is that really what our first order of business should be at the expense of our principles that have become “secondary”?
I think holding Trump to account is following our principles. He has been dragging our principles through the mud for 15 years with very little let up. Thats enough.
So do I! We can hold him to account without using his very tactics that we all despise.
Again, agreed! So why would we want to drag our principles through the mud too in a kneejerk and destructive attempt to counter him?
the DOJ is coming here to monitor the election in adams county colorado. coincidentally, a finger of adams county is where trump's alleged take over of the city of aurora by tren de agua happened, just 5 minutes over the denver county line from an ICE detention facility. the colorado secretary of state has given specific instructions to the feds on how they may remain in compliance with the constitution and state law while they observe the electoral process in colorado. they can't be armed, and they must not engage any potential voters inside the electioneering 100' buffer zone in any official capacity while those voters are waiting in line to vote, or while the DOJ representatives remain in their designated space within the polling place. we're about to get a new governor in colorado that as our last AG has successfully sued the trump administration dozens of times.
They're talking about doing the same in Hanover County, Virginia, where my college friend is the Director of Elections. He has been reaching out to lawyers to find out what he's supposed to do if the DOJ demands that he turn over voting machines. He and his wife (also a college friend) are worried that there will be violence, and that he will be stranded away from home. They've been trying to figure out what do and where to go if there is either violence at the polls, or if he has to defy the DOJ in order to maintain election integrity.
Yes, that's how he won last time, the election was obviously rigged.
Maybe it’s time we get serious about voting independent, to safeguard against anyone stealing an election.
Interesting video message from Matthew McConaughey today. Not usually big on celebrity opinion but this one is worth a listen.
He got this right in principle.
Partisans do not seem to understand political independence. They cannot comprehend that some of us do not factor party into our decisions. They think that, for example, being against Trump means one is a D.
The problem we face (still) is that the political parties are powerful machines designed to get their candidates elected. That organization needs to be matched to be able to elect independents. This is reality because there are just far too many people who can be persuaded by political ads and talking heads.
McConaughey wants people to 'just think critically' and vote for candidates who are not going to merely toe a party line. I fully agree, but thinking critically (truly doing so) does not seem to come naturally to many people (at least in political matters).
Independents as a stand alone political entity is a mirage. The two parties fund their candidates to a large degree, no candidate turns down party backing, it would be suicidal. There has never been a successful third party candidacy , there have been candidates other than Democrats and Republicans who have won (a couple hundred years ago) but they were still in an established party structure. There is a reason for political parties, the idea that if everyone were an independent things would be better is a fantasy.
No one is saying an Independent candidate stands alone.
Bernie Sanders runs as an Independant and caucuses with the Democrats.
Which is what I was referring to with:
Maybe if we did away with parties there would be less dark money involved
I don't see that happening. Nor do I see a way to force change. The SCOTUS messed up on more than one decision here.
levy a stiff tax on any political contribution over a $250 limit by any individual or any business.
I had a lunchtime chat with GPT, my editorial assistant. The following is a summation of the ideas that I wished to express:
And this little tidbit might just prove to be key:
Ultimately, we need to elect statesmen (statespersons?). We have too many who pursue office for personal gain. Our Constitution was predicated on the idea that the people would elect those who truly tried to represent the wishes of their constituents and the good of the nation. When we elect those who care more about their personal gains, we get the kind of crap that we see every day.
This is something we can do. This is far more practical than creating third parties or abolishing parties. Not that this is easy to accomplish, but it logically could be done.
The key inhibitors are blind partisanship and superficial thinking.
It's pretty tough to define your party and attract voters with anything but a "We're not the party of Trump and we're not the party of Biden/Obama" as a slogan. Everyone knows the third party must define itself as that first and foremost, but then what? What is the party for? Well, is it for fiscal conservatism like the old GOP used to be or is it leaning into socialism because it includes the Bernie Bros?
So therein lies the problem, we have two behemoth parties with behemoth political structures and funding and lobbyists locked in their defined roles of "party of Trump" and "Party of Biden/Obama" vs not a "third" party but dozens of interest groups that want to step up and be the third party but none with any party message more unifying than "We're not the establishment!". So, who are you then? What do you stand for and what will we get if we all vote for you? Sadly, most Americans will choose the devils they know over an unknown.
A lot of independents voted for Trump in all three of his elections. How did that work out for everyone?
Right now independents can vote for any candidate they want. Half Democrat , half Republican, libertarian socialist, whatever they want.
An Independent Party ? How would that work? You would always half of the party disenchanted.
And a lot of independents are saying they are voting for Democrats in two weeks.
Anyone can vote for whomever they want. People cross party lines all the time.
Less an "Independent Party" and more a moderate party would work well, but they'd need money and names people could get behind. The Lincoln Project is trying but hasn't been able to do much yet.
The words "Independent Party" is kind of an oxymoron , arent they?
What does "the middle" mean? Half of your viewpoints are left of center and half are right of center? Parties advocate a position ideologically. On a spectrum within its confines for sure , but nonetheless with a defined perspective. What would an Independent Party's perspective be? They both suck? Thats a complaint not a philosophy.
It means balance.
We have 350 million people in the US. I believe we should govern efficiently, engage in community involvement, and increase literacy rates. We should govern with pragmatism - not dogma, effect political bipartisan conversation to build consensus and balance free-market principles with proper government oversight to increase and empower the middle class.
That is EXACTLY right if you are talking about what McConaughey said/meant. He was not talking about abolishing the two parties or replacing them with a third. Again, that is often how partisans (R or D) will view an "independent" and not listen to what they are actually saying.
Indeed, and that is why McConaughey mentioned organizations like Manchin's new Independent Leadership Counsel (ILC), a nonpartisan organization designed to recruit, fund, and support independent candidates running for Congress. We need to quit looking at it from the standpoint of "sacrificing our ability to influence elections", and start looking at it from the standpoint of actually influencing elections. Until we can get enough support in Congress to represent our independent way of thinking (and as McConaughey mentioned, it would only take a handful in a narrowly divided House or Senate) then we can start dismantling the entrenchment and the money machine power of the two party system. Not to abolish the parties but bring them back toward working for us, not for maintenance of party power.
Why are you bragging on the corrupt Joe Manchin ?
I dont think AOC and Bernie Sanders are trying to perpetuate party power, they are trying to help the American people
Yes! But you are the only one in this discussion who is using those words put together. McConaughey wasn't talking about an "Independent Party", he was talking about electing folks who aren't beholden to any party, truly Independent, and wishing to represent all of their constituents, not just a rigid party platform. Partisans will link those words on purpose in an attempt to defend their entrenched party from true independent thinking which accounts for a great many of the voters.
Independent and critical thinking, logic, reason, rational discussion and compromise is indeed a choice and a philosophy. Concern about the lack of some or all of those things in a rigidly partisan environment is indeed something worthy of complaint.
There is nothing preventing people from voting independently or for independent candidates.
True. But too many are NOT doing so. Too many are voting based on party. Currently, too many have been voting based on some fantasized notion of Trump.
The idea is to vote for those who genuinely will work for the nation and their constituents. Regardless of party affiliation.
I dont think any sensible person would disagree with that. But one could still vote straight Democratic AND think you are doing whats best for the nation. I havent voted for a Republican in 50 years and I dont think I have misused my voting right whatsoever.
I agree. Being independent does not mean that you would NOT necessarily vote aligned with a party.
As I have noted before (for years now), being a registered D or R does not mean one cannot be an independent. Fine examples of this would be found in GOP lifelong supporters who do not support GOPTRUMP. In contrast, those who support/defend GOPTRUMP because they think it is still the GOP are demonstrating blind partisanship — irrational loyalty to a name (a habit) regardless of the facts.
The key is that the independent can explain why s/he voted a certain way without falling into 'because the candidate was of a particular party' or 'because I always have voted for ...' or equivalent nonsense.
One thing that is almost certainly true is that ordinary people who still support Trump —thinking that he is doing good for this nation— are seriously detached from reality.
To wit, one thing Trump has provided is perhaps the clearest test of blind partisanship we have seen. Those who continue to support such an abysmal human being are almost certainly placing partisan loyalty above objective reality.
But, they're Socialists and are trying to bring the U. S. to "their" party.
Unfortunately, those voters cannot necessarily be convinced that they are voting in a way that they do not wish to.
It is, and always has been, incumbent upon the candidates to give the voters a reason for voting for them (the candidates). Why else would one even get off of their couch?
That is the reason why Trump is in office now. He, or his campaign, spoke to them in a way that resonated with some part of the voters' psyche. The reasoning behind their choices may have been ... unstudied, flawed, or any number of detrimental things, but the choice was ultimately the voters'.
All of the highbrow reasons that may be out there boil down to squat when someone (Trump) convinces voters that he is the savior of the country. It does not matter one little bit that he is lying through his teeth. He convinced enough of the voters that he was the savior of the country, and the voters, in return, voted for him to save the country.
But that is not necessarily what they got.
Some of his supporters are in favor of the methods and actions of the administration, but a lot of them, hopefully most, may now be going, "WTF? I didn't vote for this."
So, in the end, and for this election, there is little choice over whom to cast one's ballot for: the person with the best chance of disrupting this maniacal madman's methods of malfeasance, manipulation, mendacity, misrepresentation, and Machiavellian machinations.
As much as we may wish for good governance and lofty values, the point right now could hardly be clearer: Vote to send the message that it is not OK that the GOP has been taken over and co-opted by the Trump regime. (ChatGPT may have helped a bit with the alliteration... on my request, of course.)
And, to return this thread or vine or what-have-you to its original subject: Donald Trump is actively trying to subvert the will of the people right now, and always.
With all due respect, people have a tendency to vote the way their wallets are feeling.
If DJT had not started this insurmountably foolish war with IRAN, things would probably be looking very different right now.
These three prices reverberate throughout our economy. I don't know about where you are, but it gets cold here, and we have to drive to get to work. The entire delivery system is based upon diesel engines. So that 63% is real. A whole bunch of what we do to survive around here is now incredibly more expensive. And that is not even mentioning grocery prices. Which means that people would probably not be as against DJT as they are currently, had the war not occurred.
So we would be looking at a drastically different election.
I am curious. Would your view on the election or the economy or being "Independent" be any different were you in my shoes?
Donald Trump was a clown from day one as a presidential candidate. He was never not a clown, and he proved it when he got on the first debate stage and start infantilely insulting everyone in sight including the moderators.
People on the right instantly accepted Trump because he fit like a glove into their white grievance worldview.
One day everyone will understand this.
While I agree, that says a lot about those Americans who have no problem voting for and supporting a convicted felon, admitted sexual predator and accused pedophile as long as they feel the economy is doing well.
The key question is whether a good portion of those who voted for him have learned a valuable lesson.
I knew he was a clown from about '84 at the latest. He is a shyster, he always was a shyster, and he will always be a shyster until he is dead and gone. How exactly this fucking lowest example of a primate got to be President will be eternally mystifying to me. If you were in NY, he was inescapable.
And yet somehow he became PotUS ...Twice.
Reality can be so cruel.
I wish, but clearly some will never realize this.
Says quite a bit about the electorate, does it not? Give them the benefit of the doubt. They may not have heard about those trials, or have been purposely misinformed.
That's guaranteed, but I think intentional obtuseness has a lot to do with it as well, and I hear quite a lot of "but your guy did it too!" as if Biden supposedly taking a shower with his young daughter makes it A-okay to support a fucking rapist who said he likes sexually assaulting women by grabbing them by the pussy. Eventually the excuses themselves tell the story about who these people really are.
Valuable?
Cynicism is rampant, so please forgive me.
My inner cynic wants to cry out at the term "Valuable Lesson."
Because what lesson, exactly, has been learned?
Several that I can think of. Not many of which are the appropriate ones to be deriving from all of this. Hence, not valuable.
Those who voted for Trump and who now disapprove of him as PotUS have hopefully learned from their massive mistake.
There are millions and millions of people who are going to vote for GOP candidates in order to please Trump. We can only hope it is not enough.
Hopefully.
I should not be as cynical as I am.
I can Hope that those who voted for Trump in prior elections have learned the error of their ways.
I am not holding my breath. The something that attracted them to Trump still exists.
And yet somehow it's those who never voted for him and have been anti-Trump from day one who are to blame for him according to those who voted for him. Don't you know it's your fault for being all smart and uppity proving you know more than the poorly educated conservatives Trump won with and loves so much?
You know what they say about hoping in one hand and shitting in the other, right? I have zero faith those nimrods will ever admit their obvious gullibility and start making rational decisions and acting like patriotic Americans. They're just too fucking stupid and proud.
So why do you think that is?
Sure, that will certainly be a consideration for any voter trying to feed his/her family. Should it not be?
The gas prices here in California were above $4.49/gallon before any of the Iran issues started and the all-time record peak average was upwards of $6.44/gallon in June of 2022. The policies supported by the Governor and Legislature in the last several years had driven several large refinery closures in the State as well, further increasing gas and diesel prices. Diesel prices here were at least $2.00 higher than the national average even before the war due to special blend requirements and very high taxes. Diesel is now $8.00 to $8.45/gallon here which has increased transportation cost of all commodities, especially agriculture, so food prices are way up as well. So, I was largely in your shoes already due to State/local policies, and Trump certainly made it worse. Those same State energy policies left California highly dependent on foreign supplies, so the global impact of Trump's ill-conceived war had an even bigger impact on California than most other states.
Having said that, my view on being independent recognizes all such factors resulting from the policies of elected officials R or D. So, no, my views on the economy, elections, and being independent would not be any different because I have been in your shoes (or similar ones) for quite some time. Nor would I expect your views on these things to change given your specific situation.
I never said there was.
Although most States in the union do engage in "partisan primaries" often tightly controlled by one or both of the two main parties as either an open or closed primary or a variant. Some are open to and fair to unaffiliated candidates, but not many. Many are tilted against minor parties or independent candidates due to how they are setup to limit the number of candidates who can advance to the general election and/or require more than 50% of the primary vote to advance to the general election or face a runoff (often between candidates of the same major party).
While in most states independent voters have full access to vote for anyone they want, the current primary systems present immense structural hurdles for independent or third-party candidates trying to make it onto the final November general election ballot. Heavy R or D entrenched financing mechanisms and access to media facetime clearly a huge part of that.
As of yesterday bookies were quoting odds in the range of 94% chance of the Dems taking the House and 66% chance of them taking the Senate. Even Fox news is predicting the Dems will take the House.
Not just white grievance. Many people of color support him, too. No...it's the way he talks. He makes ok to forget civility, kindness, compassion, and just downright decency. The people that vote for him have no morals, ethics, civility, kindness, or compassion. They are indecent human beings the same as he is. I even hate to refer to them as human beings because they sure as fuck don't act human
If you're rationalizing voting for a convicted felon, serial tax cheat, admitted sexual predator who cheated on all three wives and man who said he likes to grab women he finds attractive by the pussy, then you're a sick fucking piece of shit just like the guy you're deciding to vote for. No amount of "But Biden!" or "But Obama!" can excuse the horrid piece of shit these basic braindead bigots chose to vote for, not just once but likely three times now. What absolute scum.
So fuel prices are volatile.. Why do you think that they are volatile now? Is it the same reason they were volatile in 2022?
Trump Caused this war with Iran.
Are there the same drivers on the cause of the price of fuel today? The Straight of Hormuz was open before the war. Do you think there is a chance that the Straight of Hormuz will be open after (when ever that is) this war?
I see people wishing the war were over. I demand that the war is over. This piddly shit war has taken most things that America holds dear and handed them to Putin and the Iranians.
Not a good move, in my estimation.
I think they are volatile here in CA for the same reasons they have been in the last 15-20 years at least. Policies and taxes have made fuel prices in CA among the highest in the country for quite some time. I already said that Trump has just made it worse with his actions in Iran/Hormuz, and that dependence on foreign and shipping sources in this State have made us more vulnerable to global fuel disruptions and price increases than other states.
Otherwise, I agree with your assessment of Trump’s ill-advised war. And this after he sold himself as the anti-war candidate.
and demands the Nobel Peace Prize.
Trump Caused this war with Iran
Trump thought he could force a regime change ("unconditional surrender"). He thought he could just bomb the regime out of existence and Iran would then spontaneously change into a stable state with a responsible regime. One should not need to explain how naïve and stupid this is.
Trump already claimed to have destroyed their nuclear enrichment facilities in 2025. Yet now he claims that if he did not bomb them this year, they would have had a bomb in weeks. So we have that contradiction coupled with a lack of evidence supporting his 'bomb in weeks' claim.
Where is the evidence supporting Trump's claim? I cannot find any.
And of course we should continue to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The best approach is with a verified/audited agreement backed up by force if Iran violates the agreement. Do you think Trump's actions have made achieving a long-term stability more likely or less likely?
Finally, what do you think Trump should do now given he has forced Iran to play its Strait of Hormuz card and now Iran knows just how powerful this is and how the USA and the rest of the world would react when the card is played. Trump has empowered Iran.
So, BF, where do we go from here?
If you are quoting something, back up your bare assertion. If you used the block-quote feature wrong, it is ok.
I think that your apparent reasoning is just so much bullshit. The president had claimed just months before that he had destroyed their ability to produce an atomic weapon. While I viewed that claim with some skepticism, I also viewed his claim that they were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon with incredulity.
That is funny. Hilarious even. He has given up the claim of doing anything to defend the CotUS when he egged on his hand-made mob on January 6, 2021. He has only served to reinforce that estimation of his conduct since.
The PotUS is a common criminal, and not a very good one at that.
Actually the real power comes from having a nuclear weapon-- and not using it!
Example: Both India and Pakistan (major enemies) have nukes.
The fear of nuclear war has prevented . . . a major war between them!
Agree, but I am not very confidant that Iran would have it and not use it even knowing the consequences. Or who else they would supply it to that would have no issue using it.
The framers were quite aware that there are ruthless opportunists. They also were aware that the electorate would not necessarily be sufficiently informed / wise to make the right choices. The measures have changed over time.
My point is that they did believe that ultimately people would seek statesmen and would hold accountable those who did not properly serve them. If they had envisioned a predominance of career, corrupt politicians and an electorate that could be so easily persuaded with money (campaign ads, etc.) or a con-man they would have put in measures to mitigate this.
And we do not have to go all the way back to the framers to see this mindset. Compare the 20th century with what we are seeing today. There was a time when a hint of infidelity would kill a politician's campaign. When a PotUS actually engaging in unlawful activity was unheard of. Just compare what took place with Nixon, Hart, etc. with what politicians get away with today. The differences are stark.
That was politics pre-Trump. We have burnt that bridge already. We are hopefully post-Trump now.
So what do you want your political parties to look like in this post Trump era? The parties of old were obviously not answering the people's desires, otherwise there would have been no MAGA. MAGA was an answer to a question posed from without which the people answered. The fact that there was no true answer does not mean anything.
What source do you wish the political parties of the future to draw their strength from? What is the wellspring that drives these parties towards their goals? We must provide answers to these very basic questions, else we are discarded on the midden heap of history. "The people" and such are trite answers that may gain a cycle. We, as a country, need to define (I know, we've done this many times before) what the purpose of government is, who government is for, and what direction we should be moving in from here forward. The past matters, but only in informing the future conduct of the government.
Part of the problem is the GOP score card for republicans, 'around the clock fund-raising (making constituent promises) and now even worries over 'every' primary process (abuses) is 'killing' congress.
The fact that they do not stand for 'much' is not a help either.
Additionally, like most things in life, politics has and continues to 'evolve.' That is, politicians have figured out nearly all paths to counter each other. . . and political activists (writers, podcasters, and influencers) have them 'surrounded.' And we have not even mentioned what Trump does to any MAGA politician that breaks 'alignment.'
This is obviously (to me at least) fracturing. It is all starting to unravel. The world that Trump had thought so securely sewn up is falling in a heap of thread at his feet. He still has the provision of an edict from above, but family financial forces are lessening that power with each day.
We need to step in and present the people left standing with a plan to move forward.
Trump is not done yet (and the 'fat lady' has not sang!). . . be wary of him. Remember: He is transactional. . . and there is still loose ends dangling around the country. . .including Michigan with El Sayed in-fighting with Stevens. Trump loves this kind of stuff! He will 'backdoor' a democrat in a minute.
I think the MAGA crowd felt left out of the political process and then when they learned what it was taking to get things done in Washington they screamed about the malpractice and decided they could do a better job.
It would be like learning that your surgeon left a sponge in you after the surgery.
But instead of trusting the hospital to remove it who admittedly made an error, they decide to remove it on their own.
That is what half of our country saddled us with, redneck dentistry government.
I kinda suspected the same.
back to the stagnant pond
.
The Internet is always obsessed with one thing or another . . .
I wonder who the " internet " is. I picture a 40 year old still living in his/her parents basement outraged that they have not had fame and riches bestowed upon their specialness.
I wonder who the " internet " is. I picture a 40 year old still living in his/her parents basement outraged that they have not had fame and riches bestowed upon their specialness.
They're hard to avoid,
(But fortunately we don't have many people like that here on NT!
)
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Do fish pee in the very water they have to swim in?
not when visiting the zoo.....
I heard he's going to have his personal lawyer illegally order polling places in areas that favor him to stay open longer and issue arrest warrants and try to take the passports of leading Democrats. Just good progressive endorsed tactics.
At least you admit to it, that's admirable. I've only flagged one comment in the last couple years and that was someone on the left I agreed with but had made it obviously too personal.
It is hilarious though how some can sit there with a straight face and claim they're winning a debate after failing to defend their position or present even a shred of verifiable evidence to support their claims. Their dear Leader would no doubt be proud as complete denial of reality is his playbook, they could give Joey Bishop lessons.
Deny, Deny, Deny: Joey Bishop/Imagene Coca
Good example of making stuff up as I said in my post.
When I voted last Thursday, I showed my driver's license and the poll worker asked my permission to scan the bar code on the back. Of course, I said yes. It was a reasonable request. And then she asked me what my address was. Another reasonable request. I have no problems showing an ID if keeps someone else from voting illegally. Even tho illegal votes are minuscule in the big scheme of things.
the last time I voted in person at a polling place was 2012. all I had to do was sign in after they checked my name on the eligible voter list. I've voted by dropping my ballot into a ballot box after that, since vote by mail was initiated in colorado in 2013 because before that I had a desire to drive over teabag dipshits on overpasses and down the street from my polling place in 2012 ...
Mail-in ballots are only for military living overseas or AR residents living overseas. Or disabled. I actually like going to the library to vote. I got to see the asshole running against our incumbent mayor (who I really like) and was passive aggressive towards him. I was saying things to him but he couldn't hear me because he's fucking old and can't hear. Anyway, driving out of the parking lot I saw the incumbent's tent, leaned out the window and yelled good luck Mr Mayor!