Asks Jennifer Rubin, in "We need a plan to deny the election deniers victory" (WaPo).
But where's the line between "election denying" and fighting for a victory after initial returns indicate your candidate has lost?
In August 2020, Hillary Clinton made a strong argument for contesting election results...
... and we remember how hard Al Gore fought for a victory in 2000 before finally conceding. Should we denounce Hillary and Al as "election deniers"?
Can we form "a broad coalition across party lines" about how much post-election fighting is acceptable? Is the term "election denying" helpful? I don't think so. To me, it's too emotional. It feels like an effort to borrow resonance from "Holocaust denier." (Rubin also uses the term "big lie" twice.)
Labels shouldn't take the place of substantive argument. We should see that some contesting of election results is normal and desirable and that at some point we need a result and we shouldn't be dragging out the fight in a search for perfection. We need a winner, and we need a way to declare a winner and move on. Let's be rational about that.
The shared standard has to be something that we'd accept when our candidate is on the losing side. It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down.
पोस्ट्स
१०९ टिप्पण्या:
The shared standard has to be something that we'd accept when our candidate is on the losing side. It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down.
The shelf life of this rhetoric is November.
That’s the first opportunity for Dems to “fight” for a seat the vote totals say they lost.
There is a long list of Dems “finding” just enough votes to win.
‘It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down.’
Governor Abrams approves this message.
The ratings are better for conflict. You could bypass the media by devising a system that can be well audited but there's resistance to that (takes away votes from blacks etc).
Amen, sister Althouse. Use of the word “denier” is an abomination. The Left also frequently uses the term “global warming denier.”
georgian stacey abrams could not be reached for comment
“We need a winner, and we need a way to declare a winner and move on.“
Sure—but a winner who is legitimate. Compare and contrast Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen with the Obama/Clinton assertion that Trump’s 2016 election was illegitimate because Russia was somehow able to steal it for him.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
I love when Jennifer Rubin writes from WaPo about the horrors of disinformation. It's like Kevin Spacey decrying the lack of enough young men in the arts.
Perhaps the biggest problem with trust in our institutions, are the institutions themselves. You want trust in our candidates? The candidates need to stop shagging the populace. The media claps and demands more, for the good of the citizens. Academia doles out theories on why the citizens should sit back and take one for the common good. All the while, the citizenry are walking around sore and tired of getting poked every time a politician speaks.
Here's another thing. You want trust in our elections? It's not hard. Take a less from AA. The first step is to admit that you have a giant problem. For instance, asking an individual for their ID to confirm they are who is on the voter role is NOT a racist request, but a rational request. Here's another one. No mailed out ballots unless medical, travel, or military keep you away from home during the election period. If you cannot show up one day every two years to 'play citizen' for an hour or two, you don't deserve it. Finally- anyone caught ballot harvesting other peoples ballots should be removed from the voter roles for the rest of their lives. This is such obvious stealing of votes it's insulting.
And this is the Big Question for the Jennifer Rubins of the world- IF you have an interest in fair, unquestioned elections, these things need to be addressed. Getting two clones, one from each party, standing up and talking to us with words of 'coming together' and 'uniting' while their still shagging us will no longer work. It did for decades. It just won't any longer.
And the media needs to understand: they have a lower rating than our Congress. Which is to say, lower than whales**t. And they are still in denial about it. They seem to think it's just a passing phase those 'darn citizens' are going through. Or it may be an issue because of Fox News. Well...no. It's complete. The media as a whole has been lying mercilessly for so many years now that they no longer realize they crossed the line from Journalism into fabulism a while back. They've told so many lies for so long they no longer know where the truth left off and the lies began. Jennifer Rubin actually thinks she's respected and her words are heavy and meaningful to others.
She still thinks that. And that should be all you need to know about the obtuseness of our media class.
Jennifer Rubin, Shenanigan Denier.
After the 2016 Presidential election, several months passed before compelling evidence emerged that Russia had spent literally tens of thousands of dollars buying Facebook ads that enabled Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.
For example, several months passed before the American public was informed reliably that Russian Intelligence had bought the Facebook ad that showed Jesus arm-wrestling Satan -- implying that a vote for Jesus was a vote for Trump and that a vote for Satan was a vote for Clinton.
That is why we cannot just "move on" right after an election. It might take several months after an election before US Intelligence can report to the public that Russian Intelligence helped the Republican candidate to win.
At the end of election night, Trump was leading tallies by a wide margin. Biden wasn’t installed until Friday night / Saturday morning when it was difficult to reach state and local government officials to petition grievances such as counting without both parties having observers present. So what time is it too late to contest? I’m good with election night.
Very good post, good point well made.
"Is it too much to ask them to stop beating their wives?"
"Why won't you believe Epstein killed himself?"
But really, have to admire the slander efficiency of labeling someone Anti-Truth.
Pretty much "disenfranchise" them and removes any need to "respect".
Again there's something funny about the rage and hate directed against Trump. I have friends who think he showed bad character from the beginning, and sooner or later this will make him a bad leader--even someone who is reckless about the Constitution. After five years when none of this proved true in any important way, Jan. 6 made a lot of people think "Aha! Just as we've always suspected!" Suddenly it doesn't matter than Trump-Russia and many other things were complete partisan lies, propagated by public officials who were violating their oaths of office and undermining the Constitution. Only Trump can be considered evil, no one else.
Kaus has suggested that one good reason not to return Trump to office is the potential backlash, whether it's reasonable or not. Possibly a return to street protests, aided and abetted by a who's who of media elites, Washington swampers, and the prissily over-educated. It's all kind of a mystery to me.
Democrats found their cheat-to-win scam worked. So, shut up everyone or - mindcrime/thoughtcrime.
So in other words, we need a plan to deny Hillary voters a victory, because THEY still claim she won in 2016. RUBEN is one of the biggest fools WAPO has. Can't believe they still consider her a conservative. What a joke the whole paper is
Actually, eliminating election deniers would be great--Stacey stands down in GA, and losing loser Donald doesn't get to run again. Advantage: GOP. But --
"The shared standard has to be something that we'd accept when our candidate is on the losing side."
Who said anything about shared standards? No prog accepts anything that makes them lose.
"It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down."
Why not? Progs don't do foolish consistency.
Anyway, it's a little late to appeal to shared standards and both-sideism. There's a war going on. Time to pick a side.
Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to defeating candidates who have made clear they don’t respect truth or elections?
We may be seeing that happening now. That's why the Dems and GOPe are panicking.
Is there a way to edit these posts after posting?
“ It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down.”
Why not?
Ds are progressive and good, Rs are racist, sexist, homophobic climate deniers, i.e. bad.
Good > Bad.
D > R.
Rs should always lose.
That’s math.
Math is a science.
If you say that Republicans should ever win then you are a science denier.
The election was "fortified".
Denying victory to Republicans is all she cares about.
As someone who has worked in a typical election system, I have yet to see a plausible theory of election fraud either for ballot stuffing in 2020 or server "hacking" in 2016.
Any of the results could be checked by comparing local precinct numbers with state totals. As for dead people voting, give us some names. Even that info can be accessed easily enough.
To whine continually about stolen elections with no theory of the crime is corrosive. It's always, "something ain't right by God and somebody (not me) should look into it."
Put up or stfu.
As documented by the NYTimes ALGORE tried to steal the election, not contest it. Get that through your thick heads and everything since falls into place as consistent behavior by Dems.
"Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down."
Is, was, and ever shall be.
More specifically, anyone in on the racket ought to fight hard, anyone against the racket must stand down. The party ID is incidental.
"...candidates who have made clear they don’t respect truth or elections?" Translation: Trump. Next year's translation: Any Republican.
"Let's be rational about that."
Oh Ann, you're adorable.
Rubin is a disgusting regime hack. She is a terrible person people should feel bad for supporting. Her entire career has been a lie.
This article is just an attempt to assert the legitimacy of the illegitimate regime that refuses to have transparency and practices censorship.
There is a broad coalition forming. Democrats and independents are aligning with Republicans for this coming November.
Carol...watch 2000 mules. You will be stunned.
Kaus has suggested that one good reason not to return Trump to office is the potential backlash, whether it's reasonable or not. Possibly a return to street protests, aided and abetted by a who's who of media elites, Washington swampers, and the prissily over-educated.
------
I see that as a reason why Trump should be returned to office. Never give in to blackmail and threats.
“We need a winner, and we need a way to declare a winner and move on.“
And yet when we did that last time, we all lost.
The shared standard has to be something that we'd accept when our candidate is on the losing side. It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down.
But of course that IS the standard the media relentlessly pushes. And of course immediately following the new boss’s direction to stop using nazi terms like “big lie” she deploys it repeatedly. Good ol’ Jen conserving conservatism!
Temujin said...
Is there a way to edit these posts after posting?
--
No. But you can delete and re-post.
They have a good election system in Belgium... after they found a bug and fixed it. I like the redundancy part. It makes quick auditing a snap.
….“don’t respect truth”….
Maybe first try finding the truth, not hand waving the process away so the facts can’t come out. If the fact finding is fair, people will accept the results - at least the vast majority will…. Right now half the country thinks 2020 was one huge gaslighting operation.
Carol sees nothing wrong with allowing more mail in ballots than registered voters and post-election “ballot harvesting” even in states that have laws forbidding it. Noted.
What a good idea! Can we extend it to include the media and start with Jennifer Rubin?
I saw a clip of Rubin on O'Reilly's old TV show just yesterday...can't find it now.
But she made all sorts of accusations about what O'Reilly said about some topic or another.
She had volumes of notes, but when asked to back up her claims with quotes she couldn't do it. She was flustered and unprepared.
Frankly, she came off as a bit of a ditz.
No wonder the libs love her...
Just deploy your BLM/Antifa goons to threaten or murder all opponents, Jen.
Messy, but effective.
One rational solution to restore Election Day as the LAST day to vote: no “curing,” or “harvesting,” or “late” ballots unless the Pentagon’s antiquated system delays deployed members’ votes. True observable deadlines help protect the franchise from funny business. Most every change made to voting the last few cycles has been (unexpectedly!) making it easier to cheat. My personal belief is that with very few exceptions in-person voting should be the standard, and being too damn lazy to exercise your rights and go vote would not be one.
First, you would need a broad coalition across party lines against voter fraud.
"It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down."
What a perfect straw man that is the PRECISE OPPOSITE of how things actually happen in real life. Hilary Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. Al Gore conceded the day after Bush v Gore was decided.
Trump ignored the results of dozens of court cases decided against him and tried to get Pence and Congress to overturn the results of the election with the support of a large part of the Republican Party.
Maybe the line wouldn't be so difficult to draw if people on the right were honest about the damage Trump wrought and why it was different from what preceded it.
I'll be here holding my breadth.
"Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to defeating candidates who have made clear they don’t respect truth or elections?"
Absolutely! Let's go!
1: Anyone who calls attempts to clean up the voting rolls, require photo ID, or other common sense vote safety measures "voter suppression" shows no respect for truth or elections. So let's get rid of all of them
2: Anyone who pushes a Russia collusion hoax against the Presidential Election victor shows no respect for truth or elections, so they must all go
3: Any individual who has access to classified information, and makes claims about that information that turn out to be false (like Adam Schiff did) shows no respect for truth. We must get rid of them
Are their any Democrat politicians left to get rid of at this point?
One thing I notice: the law under which Presidential Election results are confirmed explicitly allows for challenges to the claimed election results. So Rubin's calling for a "coalition against people who embrace their legal rights"
Which rather says everything you need to know about her
This is false equivalence. Do you think that Hillary meant that Biden should not concede after all sixty plus of his legal challenges had failed, most on the merits, after all relevant federal and state agencies had concluded that the election was not marred by voter suppression, and his own advisors had told him that any remaining claims of voter suppression were bullshit? That on that record, he should then have mobilized Democratic Senators and Representatives to set aside the results of the election or sought to orchestrate an unlawful coup? C'mon.
C'mon. We can all agree that Trump was within his rights to demand a recount in any close state and not to concede in any state where he had non frivolous legal claims, which, if successful, would have changed the outcome in that state. And that Biden would have been within his rights to do the same, as Hilary was urging.
But your persistent refusal to deal with the facts about how much further Trump and his supporters went (including your completely ignoring the evidence emerging at the January 6 hearings) belies any claim of neutrality or even handedness.
“We need a winner, and we need a way to declare a winner and move on.“
We have that.
We have rules about how you do an election, and how you count the votes. These rules require things like allowing candidates to assign poll watchers who get to monitor every part of the vote counting process.
When those rules are violated, when the election rules are changed outside of the normal law-making process, then you've sabotaged the "way to declare a winner and move on."
Having sabotaged the system, you don't get to complain when people refuse to let you "declare a winner and move on."
Once you've sabotaged that system, nothing else matters. No court ruling, no "expert" claims, no "see, we did an audit, and it found we won", no of that can ever matter.
The only thing that matters is that your side willingly sabotaged the system by which election results earned our trust. And that means you can't have our trust.
(Note: Covid started over 6 months before the election. There is NEVER a requirement for "emergency measures" 6 months into an "emergency". By that time the Legislative and Executive branches have had more then enough time to get together and pass any needed changes to the laws. If no changes are passed because the sides can't agree on what changes are needed, well then, that's why you have an election. So you take it to the voters under the old rules. And if that pisses them off, then they'll punish the ones not willing to change the rules
Meade said...
“We need a winner, and we need a way to declare a winner and move on.“
If you object to safeguards election integrity you are a bad American. If you're so impatient you need to know who won along with your Wednesday morning coffee then you need to need to accept in person voting, voter ID, procedures to ensure voter rolls are clean and up to date....and when it appears shenanigans have occurred to undermine these things you need to accept it's not always gonna be neat and tidy...
Repeat- if you find these things inconvenient because you need to 'move on' you're a bad American...
please stop wishing on the monkey's paw
Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to creating an election system secure enough that there is little room to dispute truth or elections?
Jaime writes:
"Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to creating an election system secure enough that there is little room to dispute truth or elections?"
When one party sees a win by the opposing party as evidence in and of itself of an insecure election system, such a coalition cannot be created.
The election of 1876 (Hayes-Tilden) had a lot of similarities to what has happened in the wake of the 2020 election (even including charges that the wife of a Supreme Court justice unduly influenced his decision to support the Republican party's case). And the chaos engendered by the 1876 election resulted, a decade later, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, passed in a rare moment of bipartisan consensus.
"In 1886, the Democratic House passed a version of the act similar to the ones passed by the Senate previously, which was then enacted by a Republican Senate and Democratic House with minor concessions to the Democratic position as "a compromise measure in an atmosphere relatively free of partisan pressures." (Wikipedia)
Of course, the Electoral Count Act is now considered by scholars a wholly inadequate solution to the problem of Electors and even, in some ways, at the root of the polarization and confusion surrounding the 2020 election. That transcending partisanship will inevitably produce solutions to America's political problems is really just one more bit of American magical thinking.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
"Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to defeating candidates who have made clear they don’t respect truth or elections?"
Absolutely! Let's go!
1: Anyone who calls attempts to clean up the voting rolls, require photo ID, or other common sense vote safety measures "voter suppression" shows no respect for truth or elections. So let's get rid of all of them
2: Anyone who pushes a Russia collusion hoax against the Presidential Election victor shows no respect for truth or elections, so they must all go
3: Any individual who has access to classified information, and makes claims about that information that turn out to be false (like Adam Schiff did) shows no respect for truth. We must get rid of them
Are their any Democrat politicians left to get rid of at this point?
Seconded.
But we need to include a lot of Republican politicians in this group of people who must go.
Dan12 how do you rectify the fact the J6 commission is chaired by a man who is on record urging non-certification of 2000 election but wants to remove congress members who urged the same for 2020 results? Then explain how eliminating the Electoral College is fair and equitable.
“As someone who has worked in a typical election system, I have yet to see a plausible theory of election fraud either for ballot stuffing in 2020 or server "hacking" in 2016.”
“Any of the results could be checked by comparing local precinct numbers with state totals. As for dead people voting, give us some names. Even that info can be accessed easily enough.”
“To whine continually about stolen elections with no theory of the crime is corrosive. It's always, "something ain't right by God and somebody (not me) should look into it."”
Have you seen “2000 Mules” or read the audit or canvas in AZ? My bet is that you haven’t, so that you could maintain your pose of expertise, and keep going “nah, nah, nah” so that you don’t hear anything conflicting with your denialist position. Each of those showed, among other things, far more than the 10k votes that gave Biden his 10k victory (and their Junior Senator his 20k victory margin) in AZ. The combined AZ audit and canvas showed well over 500k bogus votes, and, yes, the canvas did look at who voted, according to voter rolls, and found over 100k of ballots from ineligible voters (etc) cast. Many had moved. Some were dead. Some had tried to vote at their precinct, but were turned down because they had already, supposedly, voted by mail. I should add the obvious - that few except for diehard election fraud denialists who were living in Maricopa County (PHX metro area) during the month before the election believe that Biden won the county. Trump had all the momentum and all the electricity. Red MAGA hats and shirts were everywhere. Ditto for lawn signs and bumper stickers. I can’t remember seeing a single Biden hat, shirt, button, bumper sticker, etc, nor any roadside demonstrations, like those where we were all honking for Trump.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
One rational solution to restore Election Day as the LAST day to vote
It should also be the ONLY day to vote, other than because you physically can not make it to the polls on Election Day, and indelible ink on your thumb when you vote.
Yes, in fact it SHOULD take some effort to vote.
because if your'e not willing to put in any effort to vote, what possible reason is there to believe that you're going to put in any effort to learn enough to make your vote meaningful, and YOUR vote?
Achilles said...
But we need to include a lot of Republican politicians in this group of people who must go.
I'm sure there will be a lot of "Republican" politicians nuked, too.
It's just that there's almost NO Democrat politicians at a national level who could pass a "must respect truth and elections" requirement
JaimeRoberto said...
Is it too much to hope that a broad coalition across party lines could commit to creating an election system secure enough that there is little room to dispute truth or elections?
Well, every time there's any proposal to make voting and election more secure, the Democrats throw a fit. So yes, it does appear too much to hope for that.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us about the election integrity proposals that Democrats support.
Elections and voting are NOT like trials, where "better that 10 guilty get to vote, rather than one innocent have their vote blocked". Because ever single fraudulent vote is the exact same thing as depriving a legitimate voter of his right to vote.
Every single illegitimate vote steals a legitimate vote. Allowing 101 people to vote fraudulently, so that 100 can vote legitimately, is a violation of our voting rights.
And when the issue is that the 100 who will otherwise lose out do so because of their own failure to act correctly, we are infinitely better off with none of the one 201 votes happening.
Because losing your vote because of your own screwup gives you a strong incentive to cure the problem, after which you;'ll be able to vote
But losing your vote because someone else was allowed to commit fraud is not something you can repair
The link Joe Smith referenced above.
Back in the day, O'Reilly really gave her the ole what for.
Asks Jennifer Rubin, in "We need a plan to deny the election deniers victory" (WaPo).
More mail-in ballots in every election is the answer.
"We need a winner, and we need a way to declare a winner and move on."
Well, if that's what we need, the Democrats are certainly prepared to supply it. They stole it fair and square, and they want to move on to stealing the next one.
Mike thanks for your response. But I have no idea why answering those questions has any bearing on Ann using Gore's "fight" over a 500 vote margin, which he ended when the legal process to challenge it ended with a Supreme Court decision against him, and the comments Hilary Clinton made as a private citizen in August 2020, to validate Trump's behavior.
Although it's important that people have confidence in election results, you can't just demand that people have that confidence or just shut up and accept the reported results. You need to instill confidence by taking all reasonable measures to ensure the integrity of the voting process and by investigating to the hilt any credible allegations of vote fraud.
People have a high degree of confidence in the safety of air travel because accidents are thoroughly investigated and remedial measures are taken in response. People would never have comparable levels of confidence if, in response to airplane crashes, the MSM and elected officials simply disparaged concerned fliers as "air safety deniers" and tried to banish them from facebook and twitter.
The problem is, reporters have become lazy, stupid, and ideological. As a result, they no longer investigate and report the truth; they purport to ORDAIN the truth. But nobody's listening anymore.
People who have not seen 2000 Mules have no business discussing this matter. An attempt was made to steal the 2020 election. It appears likely it was successful. Is that irrelevant? True the Vote was able to document the fraud because the mules carried cell phones, allowing their location to be tracked and matched up with dropbox video. This time, they will leave their phones at home. If we let them get away with 2020, democracy is over in the USA.
Rubin is nothing but a partisan shill (D) despite the big lie that she’s a Republican. She’s best ignored.
I'll trade you two pot-addled young libertarians (the older ones are diametrically different) for each pot-addled skanky leftist.
Y'all can keep Code Pink. And their velveteen vagina costumes.
Ayn Rand actually wrote excellent literary criticism.
"... across party lines ..." Simply not possible. The Democrat party elite are corrupt to their core. Their minions are either too stupid to notice or acquiescent as is illustrated by black and Jewish voters and DOJ crooks.
The acquiescent label may well apply to all but a few Republicans although they don't appear competetively corrupt. Maybe stupid works for them too. We can hope not.
I'm pretty sure that we could form a broad coalition to tell Jennifer Rubin to go away already.
Here's a question that I ask my thoughtful liberal friends:
We have a country in which at least 50 million voters are upset and very angry about the way the election was handled in 2020. And before that the Democrat candidate for the Presidency--Hillary Clinton--claimed that Trump stole the election by colluding with the Russians, and (apparently) an substantial portion of Democrat voters agreed with her.
So whether there is or is not extensive fraud in our electoral system--why haven't our political leaders (sic) in Congress called for a bipartisan commission to address the problem? To make sure that our system doesn't condone, facilitate or allow fraud, and to ensure that the voting and vote-counting systems are clear, fair, and transparent?
It's a rhetorical question, of course. But most are forced to agree. If you have a greater number of voters upset and angry about the election system than the entire Black population of our country, you have a problem which needs to be addressed. And that is true whether those who are upset and angry are right or wrong.
Rubin is the most annoying columnist and I wonder if Bezos requires this lunacy or if she is just crazy.
Carol said...
As someone who has worked in a typical election system, I have yet to see a plausible theory of election fraud either for ballot stuffing in 2020 or server "hacking" in 2016.
Hmm, so, let's see
In all your time "working in a typical election system", did you ever seem them stop counting on election night, while they still had votes to count?
Did you ever seem them kick out poll watchers, then go back to counting votes?
Did you ever see them force the poll watchers to stand where they couldn't observe what the poll workers were doing?
No? (If yes, do give us location, date, and how we'd know you aren't lying)
Then you now know why we know that the 2020 pro-Dem election results were corrupt. Because that's what the Dems did to get their "wins"
boatbuilder makes the case that feelings and emotions should drive government actions. The feminization of conservatives has been a huge success. Finally your deplorable psyche is finally catching up to match your man titties. Transition complete.
"So whether there is or is not extensive fraud in our electoral system--why haven't our political leaders (sic) in Congress called for a bipartisan commission to address the problem? To make sure that our system doesn't condone, facilitate or allow fraud, and to ensure that the voting and vote-counting systems are clear, fair, and transparent?
It's a rhetorical question, of course. But most are forced to agree. If you have a greater number of voters upset and angry about the election system than the entire Black population of our country, you have a problem which needs to be addressed. And that is true whether those who are upset and angry are right or wrong."
I'm forced not to agree. Spending months telling everyone on the right in America that the election results can't be trusted then pointing to polling that says people don't trust the election results is the definition of chutzpah.
(Chutzpah is formally defined as killing your parents then pleading for mercy from the court because you're an orphan.)
What if Republicans stop telling everyone there was fraud and try to prove that there was fraud first?? And if they can't prove it, don't say it. Maybe then there's be fewer people who question the election system.
"So whether there is or is not extensive fraud in our electoral system--why haven't our political leaders (sic) in Congress called for a bipartisan commission to address the problem? To make sure that our system doesn't condone, facilitate or allow fraud, and to ensure that the voting and vote-counting systems are clear, fair, and transparent?"
Because Democrats are less concerned with (vanishingly rare) voter fraud than with creating massive new barriers to voting. The commission you describe is most assuredly one Republicans will create, unilaterally, should they take Congress.
"People who have not seen 2000 Mules have no business discussing this matter."
To quote Bill Barr:
Hahahahahahaha
"Is there a way to edit these posts after posting?"
The only thing you can do is rewrite it and then delete the original.
One simple thing they could do is require paper ballots for federal elections - and I don’t mean the ones that machines print out. That and shut down mail in and restrict absentee for only legitimate reasons. Rather like Europe frankly - they would be horrified by the things the US allows in elections. And photo ID - everywhere else in the world it’s required.
You count them THAT night and before you count them you are required to immediately report the number of ballots you have when the polls close. If you don’t - the precinct workers go to jail.
They wouldn't be screaming so loud - and attempting to shut down any and all debate about 2020 - if they truly believed we were wrong.
Hilary Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election.
And has spent every waking minute since then claiming Trump is/was illegitimate.
Al Gore conceded the day after Bush v Gore was decided.
Once again, Doug denies all the events and attempted steals Gore tried before conceding that Bush was selected and not elected.
Words don't mean shit if your actions are in direct contradiction to them.
Correction:
Once again, Dan denies all the events and attempted steals Gore tried before conceding that Bush was selected and not elected.
All paper ballots - all saved, all voters using valid photo ID - maybe also with fingerprints and registered to vote.
Voting machines only for preliminary or fast confirmation - decisive vote counting by humans, in local precinct.
Very limited mail-in, with strong verification of signatures. All mail-in envelopes, with signatures, saved for an automatic future audit by the losing side. Before any mail-in votes are counted, the total number of mail-in votes received needs to be certified. (No "found" 2 am ballots)
High penalties for any official not following the valid laws of the state.
Democrats mostly care about results, only - Republicans care about process and results.
The 2020 election was probably stolen, by hundreds of Dem deep state operatives only slightly violating laws which are inevitably somewhat arbitrary.
With the Dem censorship of Hunter Biden's criminality, corruption, and ties to his father shown by his computer, it is certain that 2020 was not 100% "free and fair'.
All paper ballots - all saved, all voters using valid photo ID - maybe also with fingerprints and registered to vote.
Voting machines only for preliminary or fast confirmation - decisive vote counting by humans, in local precinct.
Very limited mail-in, with strong verification of signatures. All mail-in envelopes, with signatures, saved for an automatic future audit by the losing side. Before any mail-in votes are counted, the total number of mail-in votes received needs to be certified. (No "found" 2 am ballots)
(try again? #2)
High penalties for any official not following the valid laws of the state.
Democrats mostly care about results, only - Republicans care about process and results.
The 2020 election was probably stolen, by hundreds of Dem deep state operatives only slightly violating laws which are inevitably somewhat arbitrary.
With the Dem censorship of Hunter Biden's criminality, corruption, and ties to his father shown by his computer, it is certain that 2020 was not 100% "free and fair'.
Hilary Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.
Al Gore conceded the day after Bush v Gore was decided.
Multiple news reports:
Respect results? In 2002 Hillary Clinton argued Bush was 'selected' - not elected
She wasn't the only Democrat doing that, either.
I remember seeing many "Re-Defeat bush" signs in 2004
Which leaves aside the fact that Gore spent over a month attempting, in collusion with the Democrats on the FL Supreme Court, to come up with a "vote counting" rule that would let Gore steal the election from Bush.
I also remember Democrats claiming it was GOP vote fraud that stole Ohio in 2004 for Bush.
So you can keep on trying to make up bullshit about how Democrats respect the election process, but no one's buying it, because it simply isn't true
What if Republicans stop telling everyone there was fraud and try to prove that there was fraud first?? And if they can't prove it, don't say it. Maybe then there's be fewer people who question the election system.
They did and every judge including the Supreme Court declined to hear the cases. I guess they did not want nuts trying to kill them like the guy who tried with Kavanaugh. ANTIFA was allied with the Democrats at enforcing the rule of unlaw.
More Althouse gibberish right up there with having the letters "NIG" on your pajamas.
"Shared standard"? We already have that-its called the law.
"They did and every judge including the Supreme Court declined to hear the cases."
It's mind boggling to realize there are people who think "refusing to look at evidence" = "no evidence exists".
It will be instructive to hear what you "It's the law" lefties will tell us when the Dobbs opinion is formally released.
Howard doesn't think that how huge cohorts of voters feel about important things that directly affect their lives is something that politicians should be concerned about.
Which might explain the Biden Administration and the current Congress.
Howard--are you a Democrat political advisor?
Greg posts a link from a private citizen in 2019 expressing some bitter feelings. Everyone concurs that Gore abandoned his efforts following the Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore, ie the end of legal pathways to contestation.
If you can't understand the difference between these things and what Trump did, I can't help you understand.
I'm not saying that Democrats respect the election process. I'm saying everyone but Trump -- and those who aided him -- respects the election process.
(PS I wish the myth that no courts considered the substance of voter fraud allegations would end already. Quote from Reuters report on the dismissal of a Pennsylvania case:
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” wrote Stephanos Bibas on behalf of a three-judge panel.
“Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump."
If these literal words, and many others like them, mattered at all to you, Michael K, you'd stop saying no courts considered the cases.)
Daaaa I went to bed and Trump was ahead and I woke up and he was behind. The Courts won't listen to this evidence. Daaaa
Blogger boatbuilder said...
"Howard doesn't think that how huge cohorts of voters feel about important things that directly affect their lives is something that politicians should be concerned about."
"Poll: Two-thirds say don't overturn Roe"
"The ABC News-Ipsos survey published on Sunday found that 58 percent of respondents said Trump should be criminally charged"
"(52 percent) of Americans in a Gallup poll last year said laws regarding firearms sales should be stricter —"
FWIW, Rubin uses the "big lie" five times in the column after the one you cite. Argumentum ad Hitlerum. There's no other way to describe this.
“I'm forced not to agree. Spending months telling everyone on the right in America that the election results can't be trusted then pointing to polling that says people don't trust the election results is the definition of chutzpah.”
It’s not chutzpah. It’s reality. Many of us knew that the election had been stolen the morning after the election when we went to bed and Trump was comfortably ahead, in those 6 states the counting was stopped, Republicans ejected from the counting rooms, counting resumed, and hundreds of thousands if not low millions of votes counted in those states, almost all for Biden. We saw the video over the next couple days of election workers after the Republicans observers had been ejected, hauling in truckloads of ballots through the back door, and counting them, of election workers running the same stacks of ballots (brought in the back door) through the counting machines 2, 3, 4 times.
Chutzpah is pretending it didn’t happen despite the mountain of evidence that has constantly grown that the election was fraudulently awarded to Biden (and several Senators) in tese 6 states.
“What if Republicans stop telling everyone there was fraud and try to prove that there was fraud first?? And if they can't prove it, don't say it. Maybe then there's be fewer people who question the election system.”
Guess what? They have been. As someone above pointed out you need to have seen “2000 Mules” before you open your mouth about there not having been significant election fraud. And for those of us in AZ at the time, you also need to read the findings of the AZ Senate in their election fraud investigation and the 3 rd party canvas.
@Dan12 - yes, without an evidentiary hearing they weren’t able to prove election fraud in a court of law. It was Catch 22 all the way up to the Supreme Court. Judges would reject thousands of sworn affidavits, on the grounds that they were not evidence, when in their normal course of cases, would accept one or two to defeat summary judgment motions. Or, much more often, tey would not even get close to looking at facts, by dismissing on jurisdictional or standing grounds. Turns out that no one has standing to question the legitimacy of election results, other than by recounting the same stack of ballots, including illegal ones, that had already been counted. Not voters. Not electors. Not eve the President of te US. No one and CJ Robert’s had to invent a new judicial doctrine to reject the case by several states, since under the Constitution, they had (until then) exclusive trial jurisdiction i cases between states.
Let me add that Justices Robert’s, Kavenaugh, and Barrett are getting right now exactly what they deserve, with the protests, death threats, and assassination attempt. If they had followed their Court’s precedent in Bush v Gore, Trump would very likely have been re-elected, and those threatening the Justices would be sitting behind bars. But they effectively installed Biden, and his Administration has, instead, jailed, for longer than a year in many cases, peaceful protesters, before ever getting to trial.
It can't be that Democrats ought to fight hard, but Republicans must stand down.
Sure it can. I had a lib friend of mine tell me, completely unironically, "You can't hold good people to the same standards you hold bad people to!"
Daniel12 said...
Greg posts a link from a private citizen in 2019 expressing some bitter feelings.
Wow, it takes some real balls to lie about something that everyone can see.
I quoted the 2016 Presidential candidate, in 2019 still refusing to accept that she legitimately lost
Al Gore conceded on Election Night 2000, then "withdrew his concession" so he could try to steal the election.
Hillary did the same. Except she's never stopped.
Everyone concurs that Gore abandoned his efforts following the Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore, ie the end of legal pathways to contestation.
Everyone does NOT concur that Gore and other Democrats agreed that Bush legitimately won in 2000. because if they had, Gore would have told people who babbled about "selected not elected" that they were wrong.
You're welcome to provide links of Gore doing that.
Until then?
It doesn't matter whether or not Trump "conceeds". I do NOT concede that the 2020 election results were honest.
Not because of anything Trump says, but because I have a functioning brain and don't go around with my head up my a$$.
Note: up above "Carol" said "I see nothing wrong." So I pointed out the things I saw wrong, and asked her when she'd ever seen those things in an honest election
No reply from Carol. Because there's no excuse for those actions
If you can't understand the difference between these things and what Trump did, I can't help you understand.
That's because
1: There is no difference that redounds to the Democrat's favor (the Clinton campaign created Trump Russia collusion hoax, and its weaponization by the Democrats in the FBI and DoJ, is far more evil and destructive than anything Trump has done)
2: Unlike you Democrats, I'm not a mindless automaton who only does what my "betters" order, and neither are the rest of us who refuse to "accept" the 2020 election results
The Resistance isn't because of Trump. It's because the election was obviously stolen in front of our eyes, and we're not ever going to pretend otherwise
3: Trump has a legitimate complaint, neither Gore nor Hillary did
I'm not saying that Democrats respect the election process. I'm saying everyone but Trump -- and those who aided him -- respects the election process.
And that's because you're a lying sack of shit.
No one who "respects the election process" changes election law outside of the law making process for doing so
No one who "respects the election process" calls photo ID requirements "voter suppression"
No one who "respects the election process" calls removing invalid voter registrations from the rolls "voter suppression"
“Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” wrote Bibas, who was nominated by Trump."
He's wrong. Since that's from PA, the PA Supreme Court unilaterally changed election rules to benefit Democrats.
THAT is vote fraud, and a matter of public record
Dan, Mut, etc:
I do not now, and will not in the future, every "respect" an election process where violations of the normal rules takes place.
Did Democrat election officials "find a box of votes" after the counts were in? Did that switch a loss to a win?
Those votes are all fraudulent, and the election is being stole
Did Democrat election officials do anything to block Republican poll watchers from monitoring their every action with ballots?
Then every single Democrat victory there is fraudulent.
I don't care if they got one or more judges to change the rules for them, I don't care care if they got a Sec State / Election board to change the rules for them
There are no honest election results if the poll workers can obstruct the poll watchers.
If those rules make you feel unsafe, then don't be a poll worker
Did Democrat election officials shut down the count while there are still votes to count?
Again, any Democrat victory is entirely fraudulent once that happens
You all caught us by surprise in 2020, both with how blatant you were willing to be, and how pusillanimous the Courts were.
That's not going to happen this year
If you try those games again, I expect the GOP poll watchers to resist, and I expect there to be crowds of GOP voters outside to back them up
Up to and including breaking in to a place where poll watchers were kicked out, and destroying every single piece of electronic equipment, and every burning every single ballot like thing they can find
Screw us once, shame on you
Screw us twice, shame on us
But to make it absolutely clear: It wis WRONG to "accept" an obviously corrupt system. When one shows up, the absolutely correct thing to do is to reject its results
Jeez Bruce, are you a false flag liberal planting obviously terrible, violent arguments to make the Trump side look bad?
Greg none of those things happened. They're all total, complete bullshit. Every single one of them. Not only is there no proof, but the Jan 6 hearing is right at the moment that I type this going claim by claim and reviewing the videotapes with law enforcement officials who investigated them, showing clear and obvious disconfirming evidence. We have also heard plenty of testimony that Trump was told they were factually incorrect and kept repeating them. We just heard a clip of a news conference where investigators debunked the suitcase full of ballets lie based on review of 48 hours of videotape evidence, where it was noted that the Trump campaign was not submitting this claim as part of their lawsuit because they would be sanctioned for deliberately lying to the court.
Trump wanted to stay in power. What's your excuse for ignoring all evidence and repeating the same nonsense over and over again? And more, for actively going out of your way to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence against your claims?
Once again -- for you, and those of your ilk, like Bruce who woke up "just knowing" and supports death threats against Supreme Court justices, the only evidence that you need that the election was stolen was that Trump lost.
@Danny12 - I think that we know where you get your dis and mis information if you are citing to the Dems’ partisan fake show trial. The committee where Pelosi refused to let the Republicans put anyone on the committee, and appointed two Never Trumper former Republicans instead. Of course they are finding no basis for Trump’s claims - that’s why they kept anyone off the committee who might actually cross examine their “witnesses”.
Daniel12 said...
Greg none of those things happened. They're all total, complete bullshit
Wow, Daniel, are you also going to tell me the sky in your universe is routinely yellow?
1: Did Democrat election officials "find a box of votes" after the counts were in? Did that switch a loss to a win?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Washington_gubernatorial_election#Discovered_ballots
Logan announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.[14] The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. Logan admitted the lost ballots were an oversight on the part of his department, and insisted that the found ballots be counted. On December 15, the King County Canvassing Board voted 2-1 in favor of counting the discovered ballots.
Upon examination of the discovered ballots, it was further discovered that, with the exception of two ballots, none of the ballots had been cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C.[15] There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots.[15] All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.
Democrat "margin of victory"? 127 votes
Election, stolen
Daniel12 said...
Greg none of those things happened. They're all total, complete bullshit
2: Did Democrat election officials do anything to block Republican poll watchers from monitoring their every action with ballots?
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/09/detroit-poll-challenger-witnessed-election-workers-counting-ballots-for-non-eligible-voters/
An affidavit from a Republican poll challenger in Detroit, Michigan confirms there may be voter fraud in the state.
Former Michigan Assistant Attorney General Zachary Larsen testified that at the convention center in downtown Detroit, election officials appeared to be processing a “majority” of mail-in ballots from ineligible voters that were not listed in the poll book of eligible voters, nor Larsen’s scanned list. Larsen confirmed in the affidavit that he had heard similar reports from other concerned poll challengers as well.
When Larsen tried to shift positions to get a better visual on the poll book on the computer screen and the mail-in envelopes to confirm his suspicions, he was “loudly and aggressively” scolded for not social distancing by standing at least six feet away from the election official.
Larsen protested the election official’s reprimands saying that he couldn’t see to verify the eligibility of the voters’ ballots which were being counted, but the worker told him he had to stand with the computer screen out of his view.
Daniel12 said...
Greg none of those things happened. They're all total, complete bullshit
3: Did Democrat election officials shut down the count while there are still votes to count?
That happened in Fulton County, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philly. you want to ask me who I'm going to believe, my own lying eyes or the Democrats & their J6 committee?
My own eyes. Always
https://news.yahoo.com/georgias-most-populous-county-stopped-042700258.html
It's bedtime in Georgia! In Fulton County — the state's most populous county, which includes Atlanta — officials said they would stop counting mail-in ballots at 10:30 p.m., with the plan of resuming in the morning, NBC News reports. Hey, that's fine, it's not like we're in the middle of an incredibly contentious election or anything!
Now, let's look at how bullshit works:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/
You are correct, "Politifact", not every single vote counter in the entire state stopped counting at the exact same time with votes still to count.
So what? That's not what anyone is claiming. And your'e only beating up that straw man because you know the reality is inexcusable.
In 4 cities in 4 States, Democrat "vote counters" stopped counting and kicked out all the poll watchers and press.
While they still had votes to count
Doing that means that NOTHING that comes out of that "counting" office after the shutdown has any validity.
Because we have no idea what they were doing with ballots, lists of voters, or anything else after they kicked everyone else out
Which is why that's something that's never done in honest elections.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
"An affidavit from a Republican poll challenger in Detroit, Michigan confirms there may be voter fraud in the state."
Gregg decides not to mention that the court considered Mr' Larsen's affidavit and ruled that it was incorrect:
"Lastly, Plaintiffs rely heavily on the affidavit submitted by attorney Zachery Larsen. Mr. Larsen is a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan who alleged mistreatment by city workers at the TCF Center, as well as fraudulent activity by election workers. Mr. Larsen expressed concern that ballots were being processed without confirmation that the voter was eligible. Mr. Larsen also expressed concern that he was unable to observe the activities of election official because he was required to stand six feet away from election workers. Additionally, he claimed as a Republican challenger, he was excluded from the TCF Center after leaving briefly to have something to eat on November 4th. He expressed his belief that he had been excluded because he was a Republican challenger.
Mr. Larsen's claim about the reason for being excluded from reentry into the absent voter counting board area is contradicted by two other individuals. Democratic challengers were also prohibited from reentering the room because the maximum occupancy of the room had taken place. Given the COVID-19 concerns, no additional individuals could be allowed into the counting area. Democratic party challenger David Jaffe and special consultant Christopher Thomas in their affidavits both attest to the fact that neither Republican nor Democratic challengers were allowed back in during the early afternoon of November 4th as efforts were made to avoid overcrowding.
Mr. Larsen's concern about verifying the eligibility of voters at the AVCB was incorrect. As stated earlier, voter eligibility was determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters by other Detroit city clerk personnel.
The claim that Mr. Larsen was prevented from viewing the work being processed at the tables is simply not correct. As seen in a City of Detroit exhibit, a large monitor was at the table where individuals could maintain a safe distance from poll workers to see what exactly was being performed. Mr. Jaffe confirmed his experience and observation that efforts were made to ensure that all challengers could observe the process.
Despite Mr. Larsen's claimed expertise, his knowledge of the procedures at the AVCB paled in comparison to Christopher Thomas'. Mr. Thomas' detailed explanation of the procedures and processes at the TCF Center were more comprehensive than Mr. Larsen's. It is noteworthy, as well, that Mr. Larsen did not file any formal complaint as the challenger while at the AVCB. Given the concerns raised in Mr. Larsen's affidavit, one would expect an attorney would have done so. Mr. Larsen, however, only came forward to complain after the unofficial vote results indicated his candidate had lost. "
Costantino v. City of Detroit
Mutaman said...
Greg The Class Traitor said...
"An affidavit from a Republican poll challenger in Detroit, Michigan confirms there may be voter fraud in the state."
Gregg decides not to mention that the court considered Mr' Larsen's affidavit and ruled that it was incorrect:
Mutaman, who apparently can't tell that my name ends with 1 g, wants me to trust him on other things
Mr. Larsen's claim about the reason for being excluded from reentry into the absent voter counting board area is contradicted by two other individuals. Democratic challengers were also prohibited from reentering the room because the maximum occupancy of the room had taken place.
1: Wow, Democrats tell us that Democrat election officials did nothing wrong! Gee, I guess I have to accept that!
Not
Given the COVID-19 concerns
Bullshit
When you compare concerns for an honest election with "covid concerns", "Covid concerns" lose.
You're afraid of Covid? Then dont' work as a vote counter.
Mr. Larsen's concern about verifying the eligibility of voters at the AVCB was incorrect. As stated earlier, voter eligibility was determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters by other Detroit city clerk personnel.
Um, no.
The job of a poll watcher is to validate actions. And that damn well includes validating that the votes being allowed in are by legitimate voters.
I dont' give a shit if it slows down their work. We were told over and over again before the election we were just going to have to wait for results. Making the poll workers go slower so the poll watchers can validate everything is far more important than any other reason why things would slow down.
The claim that Mr. Larsen was prevented from viewing the work being processed at the tables is simply not correct. As seen in a City of Detroit exhibit, a large monitor was at the table where individuals could maintain a safe distance from poll workers to see what exactly was being performed. Mr. Jaffe confirmed his experience and observation that efforts were made to ensure that all challengers could observe the process.
Person A says "I tried to monitor their work, and I couldn't. Person B, politically an ally of the people person A is criticizing, says "no way man, everything was visible."
This does not constitute a refutation of person A, unless you're a political hack on the side of person B
It is noteworthy, as well, that Mr. Larsen did not file any formal complaint as the challenger while at the AVCB
You mean, the place he was not allowed back in to?
That's got to be the stupidest part of this "defense"
Furthermore, We know that poll watchers in Philly were kept 20 feet from the work being done, which means there's no way to monitor it.
And we know that the poll watchers and press in Fulton County were kept where they couldn't accomplish anything even when they were allowed to be there, because the video the Sec State showed on 60 Minutes to DEFEND Fulton County showed the people kept that far back.
We also know that Fulton County kicked out the poll watchers, and then immediately started counting ballots. The DEFENSE of this was the claim that they started counting because the Sec State office called them up and said "you can't stop". The video, however, shows them getting no phone calls, just standing there watching for everyone to be gone before they started counting again.
I do not care if the ballots they counted were otherwise entirely legal ballots. Kicking out poll watchers and then handling ballots is conclusive proof of vote fraud.
Because that's not something you do if you're an honest vote counter
Mr. Larsen's claim about the reason for being excluded from reentry into the absent voter counting board area is contradicted by two other individuals.
Do those people testify that every single poll watcher who left was informed "if you leave, you can't come back in"? Can Detroit prove that they informed people of that?
No?
Here's the deal: poll workers do NOT get the benefit of the doubt in a conflict with poll watchers. All "ties" go to the people doing the monitoring, NOT the people being monitored
Because preventing vote fraud, and letting the public know that the election was clean, is more important than any other consideration.
Hey Gregg
Tell it to the judge. Oh that’s right, you did. How did that work out? You lost. Sounds like you’re unhappy with that decision. Well instead of whining about it on social media why don’t you take an appeal? Oh yeah that’s right- you did. How did that work out? You lost.
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2020/11/detroit-voter-fraud-court-case-dealt-another-blow-this-time-by-court-of-appeals.html
"Incorrect" and "not credible".
Mutaman said...
Hey Gregg
Tell it to the judge.
No, loser
I'm telling you, and Dan: WE quite properly believe that the 2020 election was stolen, and given that the reasons why we think that are well established matters of public record, we're going to continue knowing that.
So you can wank about "Trump knew the election was valid" all you want. it wasn't. WE know it, He knows it
Joe Biden will always and forever be an illegitimate "President"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा