Voting discussion thread
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
I’ve been busy with family and holiday cheer, so I haven’t had much of a chance to follow up on the 315,000 illegally certified ballots, but hopefully I can carve out a little time before we hit the road again for the New Years shenanigans. I know hand-counting said ballots has some sort of talismanic quality that changes everything, but not for me.So I'm right?
I’m looking forward to learning more. Feel free to PM me whatever you have if you don’t want to post it here and risk the belittlement that inevitably comes with that sort of thing.
This was kind of disappointing.
In Minnesota, a potential voter must demonstrate residency by producing one of the following:
"an original bill, including account statements and start-of-service notification, for telephone, television, or Internet provider services, regardless of how those telephone, television, or Internet provider services are delivered; gas, electric, solid waste, water, or sewer services; credit card or banking services; or rent or mortgage payments."
Note that this says nothing about citizenship, just residency.
If a potential voter cannot produce one of those, it is legal for one "neighbor" to "vouch" for the residency of up to eight people.
There have been at least a couple of cases of vouching fraud:
For those who register early, Minnesota does send a verification postcard (with "do not forward but return to sender" instructions for the US Postal Service) to the address given. All the resident has to do is check a box and send it back postage-free to verify residency.
Minnesota allows election day registration, if the voter can prove residency.
In Minnesota, a potential voter must demonstrate residency by producing one of the following:
"an original bill, including account statements and start-of-service notification, for telephone, television, or Internet provider services, regardless of how those telephone, television, or Internet provider services are delivered; gas, electric, solid waste, water, or sewer services; credit card or banking services; or rent or mortgage payments."
Note that this says nothing about citizenship, just residency.
If a potential voter cannot produce one of those, it is legal for one "neighbor" to "vouch" for the residency of up to eight people.
There have been at least a couple of cases of vouching fraud:
- In the 2010 election, a group representing Students Organizing for America, an outgrowth of President Barack Obama’s political organization, was accused of illegally vouching for students on the University of Minnesota campus. Students were meeting outside the polling location and dividing into groups after being assigned to a “voucher.”
- In the 2012 election, two women were accused of voter fraud after suspicions were raised by an election judge because a counselor from a drug treatment program brought 15 patients to the polls and vouched for their residency.
For those who register early, Minnesota does send a verification postcard (with "do not forward but return to sender" instructions for the US Postal Service) to the address given. All the resident has to do is check a box and send it back postage-free to verify residency.
Minnesota allows election day registration, if the voter can prove residency.
Last edited:
I would never tell anyone else how to vote. Or hold against them who they vote for. Voting is sacred to an individual’s freedom.
I wish everyone was like this. It used to be the norm. Now? Not so much.
I know people who have a different "political" take on things than me who are actually pretty good humans.
And some who are not.
This is why I don't care who someone votes for or not......and actually celebrate that in this country we have that choice.
If you're going to judge someone.........judge them by who they are.
The biggest percentage of people is the number of people who lie and say they "vote the man not the party" and then vote the party.
I don't believe any of those numbers for one second - not at the Presidential level anyway.
In two-person races, even the loser is going to cobble (with two exceptions) no less than 37-38% of the vote. In the throes of the Great Depression, Hoover got 39.7% of the vote. Even in the three-man race in 1992, Bush got 37.5%. The two parties have a "will vote for anyone, including Charles Manson" base of around 37-38% EVERY TIME. There's right around 20-22% in the middle of the field that both parties are fighting over nationally.
And most of the time if you actually listen to most people, you know who they voted for whether they tell you or not. It's not nearly the mystery the pollsters want us to pretend it is.
Except Whining Donnie GAINED votes so.....what exactly is the complaint?
Thing is: you look at the ballot, it's not prone to machine error.
SCOTUS and state courts long ago rules that technicalities (for the most part) cannot be used to disqualify votes.
Many of the “independents” and “libertarians” on this board are evidence of this.
If a person tells me how they voted, that vote is open for discussion. If they dont want to discuss it, they should exercise their right to keep it quiet.
Interesting, the Boomers seem to be the most evenly distributed and Z's the least.
I self-define as a conservative - which is exactly why I've never once pulled the lever for Donald Trump.
There is literally nothing policy-wise about him that qualifies in any meaningful sense as conservative. I'd have gotten the same judges with President Rubio/Haley/DeSantis and a whole lot less drama, breakdown of the barriers that protect free democracy, and probably had a better managed pandemic with the pedophile at the local bus station in office ahead of Bankrupt Bidness Genius.
And for those going full "he has to deploy ICE because Biden opened the border," he's still deported fewer actual folks than Obama, but since Obama had no desire to be thought "tough" to compensate for his lack of masculinity, we didn't see a lot of it.
Meh, the only difference is that the media handled Obama with kid gloves. Even if someone from the mainstream media didn't agree with a certain policy, the presentation of it was handled in a carefully measured way. With Orange Man, the press is taking a radically different approach. I get that they hate Trump and everything he stands for, but the more important aspect is the subversion of the will of the American people who voted for him. IMO, that's what this is really about.
So I'm right?
Only in the sense that people who say voter fraud exists are right occasionally but not enough in a national election to make a difference.
Or like the people who tried to tell me Dan Quayle was running for vice president but not running for president.
Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit seeking detailed voter information from California
A federal judge has dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against California that sought detailed voting records and personal data on the state’s 23 million registered voters.
apnews.com
More Gemini fun times... And... Trump is just an easy, easy target. Obama was generally known for being calm and considered. Trump... Well...
The question of whether the press "took it easy" on President Obama is a long-standing debate that highlights the difference between cultural perception and policy-based conflict.
Depending on who you ask, the press was either "besotted" with his personality or engaged in a high-stakes "war" with his administration over government secrets.
1. Arguments that the Press "Took it Easy"
Critics, particularly from the conservative spectrum, argue that mainstream journalists treated Obama with a level of "celebrity worship" that they did not afford to his predecessor or successors.- Tone and "Honeymoon" Period: Studies, such as those from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, found that Obama’s early coverage was significantly more positive (around 59% positive) compared to presidents like George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
- Focus on Personality: Critics argue the media often focused on Obama’s "coolness," his oratorical skills, and his family life, which served to humanize him and soften the blow of controversial policies.
- The "Thrill up my Leg" Narrative: This phrase, famously uttered by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, became a shorthand for the perception that many journalists were ideologically aligned with Obama and lacked the necessary professional distance to cover him critically.
2. Arguments that the Press was "Aggressive"
Conversely, many journalists and transparency advocates argue that the Obama administration was one of the most difficult and secretive to cover in modern history.- Crackdown on Leaks: The Obama administration prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act (eight as of 2013) than all previous administrations combined.1 This created a "chilling effect" that made it harder for journalists to find sources.
- Seizing Phone Records: In 2013, the Justice Department secretly seized two months of phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors, an act the AP CEO called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion."2
- Targeting Journalists: The administration named Fox News reporter James Rosen a "co-conspirator" in a leak case and engaged in a years-long legal battle to force New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal a source.3
- Bypassing the Press: The White House was criticized for using its own social media channels and "official" photographers to release information, effectively cutting out the independent press and avoiding "unfiltered" questioning.4
Comparison of Press Relations
| Aspect | Perspective: "Took it Easy" | Perspective: "Aggressive/Hostile" |
| Tone of Coverage | Celebratory, focused on "hope and change" and personality. | Critical of policy implementation (e.g., the ACA rollout "debacle"). |
| Access | Obama gave many interviews to "friendly" entertainment outlets. | Unprecedented use of the Espionage Act to block investigative reporting. |
| Transparency | Journalists often echoed White House talking points. | Major organizations (AP, NYT) formally protested his "culture of secrecy." |
The "Fox News" Exception
It is important to note that the relationship was not uniform across all media. The Obama White House famously feuded with Fox News, at one point attempting to exclude them from the "pool" of reporters (a move other networks protested in solidarity) and labeling the network "not a legitimate news organization."5In summary, while the cultural tone of mainstream media was often viewed as favorable or "easy," the institutional relationship between the White House and investigative journalists was frequently described by the reporters themselves as "miserable" and "combative."
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
ESPN: Mendoza: Focus on Hoosiers' run, not homecoming- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Miami fine with underdog role once more vs. IU
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Meet 'the special 13': The JMU transfers forming an unlikely Indiana CFP title core
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Why Miami's Columbus High School can't lose the CFP title game
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0