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

Final-Fan said:

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?   

I don't believe I said that it doesn't matter.  I said both matter and I want both stopped.

Also, I'll point out that the size of the operation made it a lot easier for the irregularity to spot.  So maybe easier was the wrong word.

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?  

I'm not sure what more legislating there is to do outside of maybe harsher sentences.  What was done is already illegal and there's no interaction between the agent and the government to tighten things up.  We can talk about states that are opening up ballot harvesting if you want and stopping that to prevent these sorts of situations, but it's not been a Republican initiative.

Hell, eliminating ballot harvesting would probably be struck down for disproportionately affecting minorities too.

One person's opinion?

Fine, three people's opinion.  Does that really make a difference?

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?  

I am claiming that the premise is weak and based on a political narrative that all these laws are about restricting minority voters.

As for "if the case had gone through", when the Supreme Court chose not to hear it, why do you think that decision doesn't imply that they didn't think the decision as it stood was likely to be in error?

North Carolina's new governor asked that the appeal be rescinded.  The previous year there appeared to be 4 justices ready to overturn the 4th Circuit decision.  With the vacancy filled by Gorsuch in 2017, they probably would have done so if the case had gone forward.

Do you disagree that this would be the neutral presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary? 

Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that the 'denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.'

Chief Justice John Roberts



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

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

ARE YOU LYING, OR IGNORANT? 

—When Obama said "when you vote, you are a citizen" he did not mean that voting caused a non-citizen to become a citizen.  Only an idiot could believe this.  Also, I presume you agree that Obama is aware that illegal immigrants are not citizens.  (If you disagree, let me know.  But even if you disagree, I would simply put you in the latter category of my question.)  If you think Obama chose his words poorly and could accidentally mislead idiots, you have utterly failed to give the evidence you purport to be giving of "Democratic leaders expressly stating they want illegal aliens to vote". 
—Clearly Obama was referring to the portion of the groups the interview described that are actual citizens, and not bullshit "fake citizens who contribute to this country".  If you disagree, please give evidence that Obama shares the interviewer's definition of the word and I will, if I find the evidence compelling, retract my question and apologize.
—Clearly, Obama was saying that a citizen with non-citizen family should vote without fear that their vote put their family at risk of deportation. 
—Gina Rodriguez, the interviewer, is in actual fact a citizen.  So his words are literally true. 
—Obama's answer continues as follows:  "If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote … People are discouraged from voting, and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote."



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:

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 goalpost shifting.  As I said, that is one single datapoint.  Just because someone in the legislature asked for such data does not mean that we can just assume that the whole process was tainted.

Near as I can tell, all the usual forms of photo IDs were allowed.  The most common one available in other states appears to be student IDs, but that seems reasonable.

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.

Certainly.  However, a presumption of guilt has emerged on the left based on there being "No voter fraud" and the conclusion that voter suppression is the only reason these laws exist.  Therefore there's a ratchet effect where voting laws can only become incrementally loosened, but cannot be tightened up.



NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

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?   

1.  I don't believe I said that it doesn't matter.  I said both matter and I want both stopped.

Also, I'll point out that the size of the operation made it a lot easier for the irregularity to spot.  So maybe easier was the wrong word.

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?  

2.  I'm not sure what more legislating there is to do outside of maybe harsher sentences.  What was done is already illegal and there's no interaction between the agent and the government to tighten things up.  We can talk about states that are opening up ballot harvesting if you want and stopping that to prevent these sorts of situations, but it's not been a Republican initiative.

Hell, eliminating ballot harvesting would probably be struck down for disproportionately affecting minorities too.

3.  One person's opinion?

Fine, three people's opinion.  Does that really make a difference?

4.  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?  

I am claiming that the premise is weak and based on a political narrative that all these laws are about restricting minority voters.

5.  As for "if the case had gone through", when the Supreme Court chose not to hear it, why do you think that decision doesn't imply that they didn't think the decision as it stood was likely to be in error?

North Carolina's new governor asked that the appeal be rescinded.  The previous year there appeared to be 4 justices ready to overturn the 4th Circuit decision.  With the vacancy filled by Gorsuch in 2017, they probably would have done so if the case had gone forward.

6.  Do you disagree that this would be the neutral presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary? 

Given the blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this court under North Carolina law, it is important to recall our frequent admonition that the 'denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.'

Chief Justice John Roberts

1.  If you would think "an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening" when the question is the relative priority level of a house on fire and a trash can on fire, then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

2.  Isn't the "no action between the agent and the government" a possible area of improvement?  I mean surely there could be closer tracking of how many ballots people are collecting from voters than what happened.  Accounting of what specifically was done with ballots not returned, etc. instead of having to rely on citizen whistleblowers to notice thousands disappearing. 

3.  When five people's opinion is enough to determine whether millions of fetuses are people or not, yeah I think it makes a difference. 

4.  You sounded like you were saying that the 4th circuit court is packed full of partisan hacks that rule based on politics and no one does anything about it because ___. 

5.  Didn't know that; thanks for the correction. 
6.  Didn't remember that; thanks for the correction. 



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:

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 goalpost shifting.  As I said, that is one single datapoint.  Just because someone in the legislature asked for such data does not mean that we can just assume that the whole process was tainted.

Near as I can tell, all the usual forms of photo IDs were allowed.  The most common one available in other states appears to be student IDs, but that seems reasonable.

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.

Certainly.  However, a presumption of guilt has emerged on the left based on there being "No voter fraud" and the conclusion that voter suppression is the only reason these laws exist.  Therefore there's a ratchet effect where voting laws can only become incrementally loosened, but cannot be tightened up.

1.  And were all the blocked forms of ID not "usual"?  Unless this is the case I'm not seeing any reason to think it was coincidence. 

2.  I wasn't aware that popular opinion decided court cases.  And I suspect you'd also dispute that popular opinion is on the Democrats' side. 



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:

ARE YOU LYING, OR IGNORANT? 

—When Obama said "when you vote, you are a citizen" he did not mean that voting caused a non-citizen to become a citizen.  Only an idiot could believe this.  Also, I presume you agree that Obama is aware that illegal immigrants are not citizens.  (If you disagree, let me know.  But even if you disagree, I would simply put you in the latter category of my question.)  If you think Obama chose his words poorly and could accidentally mislead idiots, you have utterly failed to give the evidence you purport to be giving of "Democratic leaders expressly stating they want illegal aliens to vote". 
—Clearly Obama was referring to the portion of the groups the interview described that are actual citizens, and not bullshit "fake citizens who contribute to this country".  If you disagree, please give evidence that Obama shares the interviewer's definition of the word and I will, if I find the evidence compelling, retract my question and apologize.
—Clearly, Obama was saying that a citizen with non-citizen family should vote without fear that their vote put their family at risk of deportation. 
—Gina Rodriguez, the interviewer, is in actual fact a citizen.  So his words are literally true. 
—Obama's answer continues as follows:  "If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote … People are discouraged from voting, and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote."

:)

Thanks.  It was much easier to demonstrate that soundbites can be taken out of context.



NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

ARE YOU LYING, OR IGNORANT? 

—When Obama said "when you vote, you are a citizen" he did not mean that voting caused a non-citizen to become a citizen.  Only an idiot could believe this.  Also, I presume you agree that Obama is aware that illegal immigrants are not citizens.  (If you disagree, let me know.  But even if you disagree, I would simply put you in the latter category of my question.)  If you think Obama chose his words poorly and could accidentally mislead idiots, you have utterly failed to give the evidence you purport to be giving of "Democratic leaders expressly stating they want illegal aliens to vote". 
—Clearly Obama was referring to the portion of the groups the interview described that are actual citizens, and not bullshit "fake citizens who contribute to this country".  If you disagree, please give evidence that Obama shares the interviewer's definition of the word and I will, if I find the evidence compelling, retract my question and apologize.
—Clearly, Obama was saying that a citizen with non-citizen family should vote without fear that their vote put their family at risk of deportation. 
—Gina Rodriguez, the interviewer, is in actual fact a citizen.  So his words are literally true. 
—Obama's answer continues as follows:  "If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote … People are discouraged from voting, and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote."

:)

Thanks.  It was much easier to demonstrate that soundbites can be taken out of context.

That may be, but the relevant question is:  can Cindy Hyde-Smith's quote be as easily demonstrated to be harmless when put back in its natural context? 'Cause otherwise, you know, you're just desperately tossing red herrings. 



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:

1.  If you would think "an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening" when the question is the relative priority level of a house on fire and a trash can on fire, then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

I don't see a logical point in ignoring either.  If there's a fire, you put your best effort forward to put it out.

2.  Isn't the "no action between the agent and the government" a possible area of improvement?

I don't think you understand.  There is no government there at your house, nor should there be for obvious reasons.  So when a person knocks on your door and asks for your ballot, if the person succeeds in obtaining it, there's nothing the government can do.  The government isn't there to check the person's ID or tell the citizen that this person is not authorized.

I mean surely there could be closer tracking of how many ballots people are collecting from voters than what happened.

Going around collecting ballots is illegal in North Carolina.  So, no, there is no way to track it closer because no one is authorized to do it in the first place.

3.  When five people's opinion is enough to determine whether millions of fetuses are people or not, yeah I think it makes a difference.  

I'm not really sure where you're going with this numbers game.

4.  You sounded like you were saying that the 4th circuit court is packed full of partisan hacks that rule based on politics and no one does anything about it because ___. 

Actually, I was making a callback to the other thread about both parties using obstruction to keep seats open so they can fill them.

1.  And were all the blocked forms of ID not "usual"?  Unless this is the case I'm not seeing any reason to think it was coincidence.  

They were certainly rarer forms of ID and not uniform government issue.

2.  I wasn't aware that popular opinion decided court cases.

If a judge subscribes to the opinion that voting fraud never happens and there's only one reason these laws exist, then that would alter the way they rule.



Final-Fan said:
NightlyPoe said:

:)

Thanks.  It was much easier to demonstrate that soundbites can be taken out of context.

That may be, but the relevant question is:  can Cindy Hyde-Smith's quote be as easily demonstrated to be harmless when put back in its natural context? 'Cause otherwise, you know, you're just desperately tossing red herrings. 

The natural context was obviously a joke.  I don't think she's standing out in public with cameras on her legitimately musing about how nice voter suppression is, do you?



NightlyPoe said:
Final-Fan said:

1.  If you would think "an argument over which is bigger is not really one I'm interested in happening" when the question is the relative priority level of a house on fire and a trash can on fire, then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

I don't see a logical point in ignoring either.  If there's a fire, you put your best effort forward to put it out.

2.  Isn't the "no action between the agent and the government" a possible area of improvement?

I don't think you understand.  There is no government there at your house, nor should there be for obvious reasons.  So when a person knocks on your door and asks for your ballot, if the person succeeds in obtaining it, there's nothing the government can do.  The government isn't there to check the person's ID or tell the citizen that this person is not authorized.

I mean surely there could be closer tracking of how many ballots people are collecting from voters than what happened.

Going around collecting ballots is illegal in North Carolina.  So, no, there is no way to track it closer because no one is authorized to do it in the first place.

3.  When five people's opinion is enough to determine whether millions of fetuses are people or not, yeah I think it makes a difference.  

I'm not really sure where you're going with this numbers game.

4.  You sounded like you were saying that the 4th circuit court is packed full of partisan hacks that rule based on politics and no one does anything about it because ___. 

Actually, I was making a callback to the other thread about both parties using obstruction to keep seats open so they can fill them.

1.  And were all the blocked forms of ID not "usual"?  Unless this is the case I'm not seeing any reason to think it was coincidence.  

They were certainly rarer forms of ID and not uniform government issue.

2.  I wasn't aware that popular opinion decided court cases.

If a judge subscribes to the opinion that voting fraud never happens and there's only one reason these laws exist, then that would alter the way they rule.

1.  And if they were passing laws mandating everyone must hose down their trash cans in case they were at risk of catching fire, while doing nothing about electrical problems that caused several known house fires?  I'm talking about priorities and enforcement costs here.  And people are prevented from casting votes they would have otherwise cast with these voter ID laws.  I don't have reason to believe there are tens of thousands of such blockages for every fraud prevention, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was somewhere in the low thousands, and I am sure it's in the hundreds.  If true, would that be worth it?  If you had to make a wild guess, where would you put the ratio of voters discouraged from voting to fraudsters discouraged from frauding? 

2.  The ballots have to show up somewhere.  Why can't they more closely monitor these collection points for hundreds of ballots coming from the same place?  Good catch on the ballot harvesting being illegal, but it doesn't invalidate my point that the system didn't itself catch the fact that so many mail-in ballots went missing.  Perhaps it would have done so in time, but that's not the impression I had.  If that impression is correct that's an area of improvement. 

3.  We're even then. 

1-2.  I'll look into that. 

2-2.  "Voting fraud never happens" is a pretty gross oversimplification that I doubt any judges believe, even if some members of the public do.  Similarly there are member of the public that believe the trade deficit means we literally hand piles of cash to other countries, but I doubt that even the most partisan of policymakers take this view. 



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!