Quantcast
Florida's Election Officials Questionable Behavior During the Recount is Harming Rick Scott

Forums - Politics Discussion - Florida's Election Officials Questionable Behavior During the Recount is Harming Rick Scott

NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

The degree to which SpokenTruth has validated your previously-stated position is very narrow IMO.  He demonstrated that voting fraud is probably a real issue in some places, yes.  But a mail-in voting fraud scandal doesn't justify laws that make it significantly harder to vote in person but do nothing to stop the sort of fraud that allegedly happened.  What laws are you referring to that this demonstrates the necessity of, and (if this isn't already self-evident after the previous) what is their relation to the laws that you were previously defending? 

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten the Supreme Court thing.  Real life is getting in the way and I'm afraid I don't have the energy to give it too much of my free time.  (My car is dying, work is in a crunch, and I have to build a computer.) 

Actually, I did point out mail-in voter fraud as a potential problem.  SpokenTruth mocked me for it.  I'll also point out that new laws like California's ballot harvesting would make chicanery of the type being alleged here easier.

As for other laws, it is what I said.  People will always try to cheat a system.  Particularly one with low barriers.  It doesn't make sense that this would be the only method anyone would use.

Ahem, yes.  Yes, the fact that you pointed out mail-in fraud as a potential problem is what I was referring to when I said SpokenTruth "validated your previously-stated position" to some extent.  However, in this thread it appears to me that you have focused on defending laws purporting to protect against in-person voter fraud, and you have argued that such fraud is enough of a problem to justify the laws and the burden they impose. 

(In fact, you went so far as to say "voter suppression laws are not a thing", contradicting the verdicts in court cases such as the North Carolina one with the infamous "surgical precision" line.  I would be somewhat interested to hear how you reckon "let's find out what types of ID white people use and black people use and then allow the predominantly-white IDs and disallow the predominantly-black IDs" is not a "voter suppression" law.  But anyway...)

The problem with characterizing the report of mail-in ballot voter fraud as a sweeping validation of your position is that it in no way supports your position that in-person voter fraud is common enough to justify the measures being put in place with the alleged goal of stopping it.  Nor does it validate your support of said laws from the perspective of the law doing anything to prevent the fraud that allegedly occurred, when as far as I know there is no relation between the laws you went to bat for earlier and the alleged fraud SpokenTruth reported. 

Nor does it "blow a hole in" the main thrust of SpokenTruth's point in that he is putting himself in opposition to the aforementioned positions.  His additional objection to the idea of mail-in voter fraud has proven to be wrong; when he discovered that this was the case, he duly reported it.  You took this report as evidence for "the necessity of laws"—presumably laws that would do something about fraud such as what was reported, although you had not AFAIK advocated in favor of such laws in this thread, whereas you had advocated in favor of other laws that AFAIK would do nothing about this specific type of fraud.

The main difference between the fraud suggested in the report and the vast amounts of voter impersonation envisioned by Trump is that the latter would be novel fraudulent votes.  Intercepting legitimate votes and either altering them or discarding them is not something done once or twice by many individuals; it's most effective done prolifically by a small number of bad actors.  There is simply no justification for the idea that there is anyone out there voting hundreds of times by live in-person voter impersonation.  If anyone is doing it by mail, I would imagine they'd have to do it by a scheme at least somewhat similar in concept to the one reported, which is to say that at a minimum it would have to identify legitimate voters whose vote had not yet been counted and who would not be voting in the future.  The interception of mail-in ballots (which is the alleged fraud in this case) is one of the few ways I can see this being done; the only other reliable way would to identify people who literally cannot vote (e.g. dead people), though like you I am not a master criminal.  Therefore, it seems more profitable to police voter registries for nonexistent people; yet so many Republicans, and you, focus instead on in-person impersonators who, if impersonating actual voters, are literally more likely to expose themselves in direct proportion to the magnitude of their crime—collectively, not individually—yet time and again searches for such in person impersonations have been fruitless. 

Relatedly, I'd like you to put your agreement on record that it is absolutely ridiculous that "only six of the 31 states with voter ID laws also impose similar requirements on people who mail in absentee ballots".  (sez Wikipedia, while I was fooling around in the writing of this post)

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 06 December 2018

Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Final-Fan said:

Ahem, yes.  Yes, the fact that you pointed out mail-in fraud as a potential problem is what I was referring to when I said SpokenTruth "validated your previously-stated position" to some extent.  However, in this thread it appears to me that you have focused on defending laws purporting to protect against in-person voter fraud, and you have argued that such fraud is enough of a problem to justify the laws and the burden they impose.  

I have not focused on anything.  I have a concern about voting fraud in many areas, including absentee ballots.  In your post, you focus on mass attempts at voter fraud.  Yes, this does seem to be an easier way to do it.  However, voter fraud around the margins makes a difference as well.  So, an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening because I don't wish for either to happen.

In fact, you went so far as to say "voter suppression laws are not a thing", contradicting the verdicts in court cases such as the North Carolina one with the infamous "surgical precision" line.

Ah yes, the 4th Circuit.  You do know that the 4th Circuit and the DC Circuit are the crown jewels in Democrat obstruction efforts on Bush's judicial nominees.  Literally just 10 years ago, the 4th Circuit had a reputation as the most conservative circuit in the country.  Now it is one of the most liberal.  That case was decided by a Clinton and two Obama appointees.

Anyway, I'll point out that North Carolina actually won at the district level and may well have one at the Supreme Court if the case had gone through.  No matter what the case, though, simply pointing to one line by one judge in one decision and marking it as proof that what that one person's opinion is would be absolutely true is itself a folly.  Particularly when there doesn't appear to be any new election law you can pass that doesn't run into claims that it disproportionately affects minorities.



NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

Ahem, yes.  Yes, the fact that you pointed out mail-in fraud as a potential problem is what I was referring to when I said SpokenTruth "validated your previously-stated position" to some extent.  However, in this thread it appears to me that you have focused on defending laws purporting to protect against in-person voter fraud, and you have argued that such fraud is enough of a problem to justify the laws and the burden they impose.  

I have not focused on anything.  I have a concern about voting fraud in many areas, including absentee ballots.  In your post, you focus on mass attempts at voter fraud.  Yes, this does seem to be an easier way to do it.  However, voter fraud around the margins makes a difference as well.  So, an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening because I don't wish for either to happen.

In fact, you went so far as to say "voter suppression laws are not a thing", contradicting the verdicts in court cases such as the North Carolina one with the infamous "surgical precision" line.

Ah yes, the 4th Circuit.  You do know that the 4th Circuit and the DC Circuit are the crown jewels in Democrat obstruction efforts on Bush's judicial nominees.  Literally just 10 years ago, the 4th Circuit had a reputation as the most conservative circuit in the country.  Now it is one of the most liberal.  That case was decided by a Clinton and two Obama appointees.

Anyway, I'll point out that North Carolina actually won at the district level and may well have one at the Supreme Court if the case had gone through.  No matter what the case, though, simply pointing to one line by one judge in one decision and marking it as proof that what that one person's opinion is would be absolutely true is itself a folly.  Particularly when there doesn't appear to be any new election law you can pass that doesn't run into claims that it disproportionately affects minorities.

So if you disagree with the judge what do you think is the reason the republicans got voting trend data based on ethnicity?



...

And another thing.  For all the claims by Republicans (and people on this forum here and here) that Democrats want illegal aliens to vote (which we don't), here is a Republican senator intentionally wanting to prevent legal citizens from being able to vote.

“And then they remind me that there’s a lot of liberal folks in those other schools who maybe we don’t want to vote, Maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult. And I think that’s a great idea.” - Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith


Can you find me statements made by Democratic leaders expressly stating they want illegal aliens to vote in gubernatorial and federal elections?

 

To recap, we have found voter fraud - by Republicans, not Democrats - and we have found voter suppression - by Republicans, no Democrats.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Torillian said:
NightlyPoe said:

I have not focused on anything.  I have a concern about voting fraud in many areas, including absentee ballots.  In your post, you focus on mass attempts at voter fraud.  Yes, this does seem to be an easier way to do it.  However, voter fraud around the margins makes a difference as well.  So, an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening because I don't wish for either to happen.

In fact, you went so far as to say "voter suppression laws are not a thing", contradicting the verdicts in court cases such as the North Carolina one with the infamous "surgical precision" line.

Ah yes, the 4th Circuit.  You do know that the 4th Circuit and the DC Circuit are the crown jewels in Democrat obstruction efforts on Bush's judicial nominees.  Literally just 10 years ago, the 4th Circuit had a reputation as the most conservative circuit in the country.  Now it is one of the most liberal.  That case was decided by a Clinton and two Obama appointees.

Anyway, I'll point out that North Carolina actually won at the district level and may well have one at the Supreme Court if the case had gone through.  No matter what the case, though, simply pointing to one line by one judge in one decision and marking it as proof that what that one person's opinion is would be absolutely true is itself a folly.  Particularly when there doesn't appear to be any new election law you can pass that doesn't run into claims that it disproportionately affects minorities.

So if you disagree with the judge what do you think is the reason the republicans got voting trend data based on ethnicity?

I don't think that single data point is proof of anything.  Additionally, the "surgical precision" line is remarkable in how untrue it is.  Everything, apparently, affect minorities most according to the complaints.  So there's no need for precision.



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
Torillian said:

So if you disagree with the judge what do you think is the reason the republicans got voting trend data based on ethnicity?

I don't think that single data point is proof of anything.  Additionally, the "surgical precision" line is remarkable in how untrue it is.  Everything, apparently, affect minorities most according to the complaints.  So there's no need for precision.

This is such blatant misunderstanding that I wonder if you're even paying attention.  Everything that the law chose to restrict affected minorities more.  Which was the reason the court put a stop to it. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
NightlyPoe said:

I don't think that single data point is proof of anything.  Additionally, the "surgical precision" line is remarkable in how untrue it is.  Everything, apparently, affect minorities most according to the complaints.  So there's no need for precision.

This is such blatant misunderstanding that I wonder if you're even paying attention.  Everything that the law chose to restrict affected minorities more.  Which was the reason the court put a stop to it. 

No, I was making a real point.  It's always claimed that it affects minorities more.  No matter how laws are tightened, this is the inevitable claim.  Even a state with an absurdly long 35 day voting period like Ohio was dragged to court on the premise and lost at the district level when they lowered it to a still absurdly long 29 days before squeaking by 2-1 at the Circuit level.

So you'll excuse me if I don't take such complaints at their word and instead contemplate the merits of the laws themselves.



 

SpokenTruth said:

Can you find me statements made by Democratic leaders expressly stating they want illegal aliens to vote in gubernatorial and federal elections?



NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

Ahem, yes.  Yes, the fact that you pointed out mail-in fraud as a potential problem is what I was referring to when I said SpokenTruth "validated your previously-stated position" to some extent.  However, in this thread it appears to me that you have focused on defending laws purporting to protect against in-person voter fraud, and you have argued that such fraud is enough of a problem to justify the laws and the burden they impose.  

I have not focused on anything.  I have a concern about voting fraud in many areas, including absentee ballots.  In your post, you focus on mass attempts at voter fraud.  Yes, this does seem to be an easier way to do it.  However, voter fraud around the margins makes a difference as well.  So, an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening because I don't wish for either to happen.

In fact, you went so far as to say "voter suppression laws are not a thing", contradicting the verdicts in court cases such as the North Carolina one with the infamous "surgical precision" line.

Ah yes, the 4th Circuit.  You do know that the 4th Circuit and the DC Circuit are the crown jewels in Democrat obstruction efforts on Bush's judicial nominees.  Literally just 10 years ago, the 4th Circuit had a reputation as the most conservative circuit in the country.  Now it is one of the most liberal.  That case was decided by a Clinton and two Obama appointees.

Anyway, I'll point out that North Carolina actually won at the district level and may well have one at the Supreme Court if the case had gone through.  No matter what the case, though, simply pointing to one line by one judge in one decision and marking it as proof that what that one person's opinion is would be absolutely true is itself a folly.  Particularly when there doesn't appear to be any new election law you can pass that doesn't run into claims that it disproportionately affects minorities.

This seems either deliberately disingenuous or incredibly narrowminded.  It doesn't matter which is bigger?  Why wouldn't it, when the one that we have actual evidence is happening is the one NOT receiving legislation purportedly designed to stop it?  Let me rephrase my question from earlier:  do you think it's not unreasonable that they are focusing almost exclusively on in-person voter fraud despite repeated failures to produce evidence of it being a significant problem, instead of focusing on stopping fraud schemes such as this one? 

One person's opinion?  How many judges did you say were on that court?  I was under the impression that an opinion joined by multiple justices or judges could fairly be called their collective "opinion".  And it's not like this is the only law that has been struck down in recent years for the reason that it was unconstitutionally restricting voters' franchise; are you really claiming that it's just because of biased Democratic judges, and that the rest of the judicial system is simply choosing not to call out their bullshit? 

As for "if the case had gone through", when the Supreme Court chose not to hear it, why do you think that [edit: choice] doesn't imply that they didn't think the decision as it stood was likely to be in error?  Do you disagree that this would be the neutral presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary? 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 06 December 2018

Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

This is such blatant misunderstanding that I wonder if you're even paying attention.  Everything that the law chose to restrict affected minorities more.  Which was the reason the court put a stop to it. 

No, I was making a real point.  It's always claimed that it affects minorities more.  No matter how laws are tightened, this is the inevitable claim.  Even a state with an absurdly long 35 day voting period like Ohio was dragged to court on the premise and lost at the district level when they lowered it to a still absurdly long 29 days before squeaking by 2-1 at the Circuit level.

So you'll excuse me if I don't take such complaints at their word and instead contemplate the merits of the laws themselves.

No, I won't excuse this blatant goalpost-shifting.  The North Carolina legislature requested and received racial data on many forms of IDs; in other words, data on which IDs whites were more likely to have (and lack) and which IDs blacks were more likely to have (and lack).  Then they passed a law that, as I understand the court's ruling, removed as legitimate voter ID exclusively forms of ID that blacks were least likely to lack.  It is not reasonable to believe that this is coincidence without justification that you have not provided meYou have to work much harder at tying this to allegedly unjustified complaints such as reducing early voting in Ohio. 

I haven't followed the Ohio case, though I have heard of it before; but take care that you don't let your personal bias against early voting color your view.  My understanding is that a thing that is done by a hypothetical corrupt legislative body to disadvantage the other party's voters can expect to be struck down as discriminatory if that motive is provable, no matter whether there is a reasonable motive that some other hypothetical pure-hearted legislative body could have done the exact same thing for.  Let me know if you believe that understanding is in error. 

I mean, look at it another way.  You are telling me that there are always claims that this or that disproportionately affects minority voters, and using that to justify your claim that a given scenario is not actually disproportionately affecting minority voters.  This doesn't follow.  If you think the claims are universal, then that is reason for skepticism; the question must therefore be decided on the merits and not whether someone is complaining.  (Arguably, one could rely on who is complaining, if there were people one trusted involved in the situation.  But anyway.)  And there's reason to suspect that such claims are justified when it grants a partisan advantage to the party pushing for the law in question, which certainly deserves extra scrutiny, though case should be taken not to take the disadvantaged party's complaints as gospel. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!