Why Impeach Trump now?

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

On 1/11/2021 at 10:36 PM, GoAU said:

I’m not concerned who wrote the laws - Republicans, just like Democrats, have written bad laws before - and will do it again.  IMO, in person voting, except in true absentee cases should be the norm.  

Why? I mean really. Why? What's the point? Why should voting be harder rather than easier? Why should people have to take off from work to vote? Why should anyone have to stand in line to vote? What, other than making voter harder and reducing participation, is the point?

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

On 1/12/2021 at 8:41 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Check out this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

Once Trump leaves office, the Senate can’t hold an impeachment trial

That's an opinion piece. But here's the thing. There is in fact precedent for holding an impeachment trial of holders of federal office in the senate after their term of office is up. It's been done before. And I will tell you this also. The Department of Justice says that a president CAN be impeached and tried in the senate after he leaves office.

Put it this way...

If a president could not be impeached after their term, then effectively at the end of their term they could commit impeachable offense of all kinds without restraint or fear of accountability. That simply can't be the case. And like I said, there is precedent for impeachment trial after someone leaves office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/13/impeachment-blount-belknap-trump/

https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/

 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

18 hours ago, Leftfield said:

A question: my understanding is that it takes a super-majority to convict someone in an impeachment trial, but only a simple majority to bar them from future public office. The former seems to be in doubt, and may need to be settled by the courts. Do you know if it is the same for the latter? Does the person have to be impeached for the latter to occur?

The person does NOT have to be impeached to be barred from office.  Section three of the 14th Amendment provides this:

Quote

 

Fourteenth Amendment 

Section 3

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, CleCoTiger said:

Why? I mean really. Why? What's the point? Why should voting be harder rather than easier? Why should people have to take off from work to vote? Why should anyone have to stand in line to vote? What, other than making voter harder and reducing participation, is the point?

Why?  How about ensuring that only people legally allowed to vote actually vote?   I’m sorry if you feel voting by mail is actually valid, that is your opinion.  I don’t need to see a bunch of articles written by people that are also biased (in either direction), there is no way to ensure ballets are actually being cast by the person they are intended for, unless you actually verify the ID of the person while they are there.  
 

But, if you are so sure the votes are only going the the people intended, and there is no corruption involved, why don’t we just allow purchase of firearms through the mail too?  Forget the current system that requires FFLs to handle the actual transfers - just do it through the mail if it’s secure?  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

Why?  How about ensuring that only people legally allowed to vote actually vote?   I’m sorry if you feel voting by mail is actually valid, that is your opinion.  I don’t need to see a bunch of articles written by people that are also biased (in either direction), there is no way to ensure ballets are actually being cast by the person they are intended for, unless you actually verify the ID of the person while they are there.  

Ok, first let's establish something we all should agree on:  There are fraudulent votes (non-residents, dead people, ballots filled out for other people, etc.) cast every single election and more than likely have been in every single election all the way back to the first one with George Washington.  Human beings are fallen, sinful creatures who do wrong, dishonest, and sinful things and elections would be no exception.  If there is money, power, or influence to be gained, there you will find dishonest means to obtain it.

What we're really arguing about with these claims of election fraud or "stolen" elections or "legal ballots" is whether there was illegality or fraud of such a massive scale (as in tens of thousands to millions of votes) as to swing a presidential election.  So simply posting some article where some illegal ballots were cast here or there is not proof of anything close to making this a stolen election.  What we need to see is actual evidence of widespread, systemic, election altering fraud.  And thus far I've not seen anything that would even come remotely close to proving such a thing.  In fact, there's no evidence in the states who've been doing vote by mail for several years to decades now that they have any more of an issue with illegal voting than states that don't.  There's no evidence that states who have more relaxed permissions for when someone can get an absentee ballot have significantly more incidences of fraud. 

So make some tweaks here and there if it makes you feel better.  But the end result is going to be more of a performative nature than actually changing who wins elections going forward.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Also, it's not an opinion that mail-in voting isn't meaningfully fraudulent, because all evidence- and there was plenty of it before this election- points to it being perfectly valid. That is why they keep doing it.

Christ, I wish you folks would look in the mirror and really ask yourselves why you started having all of these doubts about the integrity of our elections right at the same time that King Orange Jackass started telling you to. And, again, ask yourselves how it somehow only favors Dems. 

Y'all got work to do. But you need to do it. For your country, for your families, for yourselves. You've got to get your damn minds right. 

 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,102]

32 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Also, it's not an opinion that mail-in voting is meaningfully fraudulent, because all evidence- and there was plenty of it before this election- points to it being perfectly valid. That is why they keep doing it.

Christ, I wish you folks would look in the mirror and really ask yourselves why you started having all of these doubts about the integrity of our elections right at the same time that King Orange Jackass started telling you to. And, again, ask yourselves how it somehow only favors Dems. 

Y'all got work to do. But you need to do it. For your country, for your families, for yourselves. You've got to get your damn minds right. 

 

 

One thing I'll mention is that Conservatives believing that Democrats cheat in elections isn't something that's new or that started with this election. For probably close to a decade or more, the accusation of "Dead democrats voting" and democratic tampering of elections has been a political meme for the Right. Most of the people who are really on the stolen election bus right now, have had the idea planted in their minds that Democrats are cheaters for a long time. Conservative media has always played it up and there has always been enough of the 'we found 1 or 2 people in this state that were deceased but had ballots cast in their names" stories to provide a veneer of authenticity to the claim even if election officials and watchdogs have never found it to be a noteworthy problem (and the fact that conservatives have found to benefit from irregularities also goes unreported).

What's different in 2020 is the the Republican President and a majority of the major elected Republican officials are for the first time openly supporting these views and suggesting they could very well be true, where as in the past these voting conspiracy's were mostly ignored by the larger GOP.

Trumpers will rightfully tell you they don't believe these accusations because Trump said it, they've believed it all along, it's just now that one of the major political parties is now offering them their passive/vocal support.

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

One thing I'll mention is that Conservatives believing that Democrats cheat in elections isn't something that's new or that started with this election. For probably close to a decade or more, the accusation of "Dead democrats voting" and democratic tampering of elections has been a political meme for the Right. Most of the people who are really on the stolen election bus right now, have had the idea planted in their minds that Democrats are cheaters for a long time. Conservative media has always played it up and there has always been enough of the 'we found 1 or 2 people in this state that were deceased but had ballots cast in their names" stories to provide a veneer of authenticity to the claim even if election officials and watchdogs have never found it to be a noteworthy problem (and the fact that conservatives have found to benefit from irregularities also goes unreported).

What's different in 2020 is the the Republican President and a majority of the major elected Republican officials are for the first time openly supporting these views and suggesting they could very well be true, where as in the past these voting conspiracy's were mostly ignored by the GOP.

Trumpers will rightfully tell you they don't believe these accusations because Trump said it, they've believed it all along, it's just now that one of the major political parties is now offering them their passive/vocal support.

I think that's a good read on the situation. 

[Leftfield 2,595]

13 hours ago, Grumps said:

Maybe. For some reason, it is assumed that the people on the left are 100% correct and the people on the right are 100% looney. I'm used to it.

All I know to do is look at the actual words that were said and then use my intellect and education to interpret what those words mean. I will readily admit that it is possible that all of never-Trumpers are smarter and more educated than I am. It is also possible that hatred has damaged your ability to reason.

Just for fun I'll ask (and don't expect a reply) "What words did Trump use to incite the mob?"

You are completely missing the forest for the trees. You cannot look at this situation as having been caused by this one speech, which seems to be what those who support Trump are doing. 

From the word go, Trump's rhetoric and demeanor in just about any situation were overly aggressive and rude, many times spilling over into combative and violent. That "Bull in a China Shop" mentality is what endeared him to so many who felt marginalized, but it's constant with him so it became the new normal. Many of those who admired it (I remember how many people described it as "refreshing" and “a breath of fresh air” compared to other politicians) naturally began acting in a similar manner, since it was now not only accepted but on full display by the most powerful person in the world. With that aggressive mentality fully sanctioned, it was a perfect time for extreme groups to begin operating more openly and grow their numbers.

Over the course of Trump’s term, It's been apparent to anyone willing to pay attention that these groups were becoming a larger threat. Certainly Trump knew it, but never discouraged it unless the situation forced him to (and then very weakly), which was tacit approval. Even when it became common knowledge that there were a great number of people on the lunatic fringe, the right swept it under the rug to protect their guy, and when Trump acted ignorant about it (if you believe for one second that he didn’t know about Qanon when asked in the debate, then there’s no point in us having a conversation) hardly anyone on the right called him on it.

Trump started the election fraud lie months before the election even happened (of course he would, since he even did it when he ran against Clinton), knowing full well it would reinforce the most dangerous faction of his party’s distrust of government, and once the election was over he hammered the lie with every opportunity. Fast forward to December, and with all his other options exhausted he pushes another lie that Pence had the power to overturn the election, with the false narrative that “hey, to encourage Congress to do the right thing, why not have a rally near the Capitol?” Who the hell do you think will show up to a function like that? Calm, reasoning adults who understand they lost, or easily duped, desperate people who think the government is against them and the only path to getting their way is through force? That the rally was even promoted by Trump was enough to warrant calls of sedition. Considering the powder keg that was gathered it wouldn’t take much to push the crowd over the edge, and everyone on that stage was thrilled not to disappoint.

I don’t know if you are just trying to win the argument on a technicality here, or if you are truly so biased that you are blind to what has been happening over the past four years. Regardless, the fact your post offered no consideration of everything leading to that rally raises severe questions about your “intellect and education.”

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You are completely missing the forest for the trees. You cannot look at this situation as having been caused by this one speech, which seems to be what those who support Trump are doing. 

From the word go, Trump's rhetoric and demeanor in just about any situation were overly aggressive and rude, many times spilling over into combative and violent. That "Bull in a China Shop" mentality is what endeared him to so many who felt marginalized, but it's constant with him so it became the new normal. Many of those who admired it (I remember how many people described it as "refreshing" and “a breath of fresh air” compared to other politicians) naturally began acting in a similar manner, since it was now not only accepted but on full display by the most powerful person in the world. With that aggressive mentality fully sanctioned, it was a perfect time for extreme groups to begin operating more openly and grow their numbers.

Over the course of Trump’s term, It's been apparent to anyone willing to pay attention that these groups were becoming a larger threat. Certainly Trump knew it, but never discouraged it unless the situation forced him to (and then very weakly), which was tacit approval. Even when it became common knowledge that there were a great number of people on the lunatic fringe, the right swept it under the rug to protect their guy, and when Trump acted ignorant about it (if you believe for one second that he didn’t know about Qanon when asked in the debate, then there’s no point in us having a conversation) hardly anyone on the right called him on it.

Trump started the election fraud lie months before the election even happened (of course he would, since he even did it when he ran against Clinton), knowing full well it would reinforce the most dangerous faction of his party’s distrust of government, and once the election was over he hammered the lie with every opportunity. Fast forward to December, and with all his other options exhausted he pushes another lie that Pence had the power to overturn the election, with the false narrative that “hey, to encourage Congress to do the right thing, why not have a rally near the Capitol?” Who the hell do you think will show up to a function like that? Calm, reasoning adults who understand they lost, or easily duped, desperate people who think the government is against them and the only path to getting their way is through force? That the rally was even promoted by Trump was enough to warrant calls of sedition. Considering the powder keg that was gathered it wouldn’t take much to push the crowd over the edge, and everyone on that stage was thrilled not to disappoint.

I don’t know if you are just trying to win the argument on a technicality here, or if you are truly so biased that you are blind to what has been happening over the past four years. Regardless, the fact your post offered no consideration of everything leading to that rally raises severe questions about your “intellect and education.”

That was great post! Seriously! But I am not trying to win on a technicality. Impeachment IS a technicality. Almost everything you said above is true. Trump seems to be a pathetic excuse for a human being. Anyone who broke into the Capitol as a show of support to Trump is an idiot. Trump is full of rhetoric and nonsense. He likes to gets his supporters riled up. But I don't see any of what he said or did to be anywhere close to an impeachable offense.

The impeachment is all political, in my opinion. The liberals taste blood and they think they can finish off Trump and the republicans. Maybe they can. We will see. But I think that Trump is already finished. I think that people who voted for Trump see this as a stunt and it just confirms what they already think about the liberals. 

One thing you said that is absolutely wrong is your implication that more than a few people at the rally were there for any reason other than to show support for their POTUS. You know that is not true.

[Leftfield 2,595]

26 minutes ago, Grumps said:

That was great post! Seriously! But I am not trying to win on a technicality. Impeachment IS a technicality. Almost everything you said above is true. Trump seems to be a pathetic excuse for a human being. Anyone who broke into the Capitol as a show of support to Trump is an idiot. Trump is full of rhetoric and nonsense. He likes to gets his supporters riled up. But I don't see any of what he said or did to be anywhere close to an impeachable offense.

The impeachment is all political, in my opinion. The liberals taste blood and they think they can finish off Trump and the republicans. Maybe they can. We will see. But I think that Trump is already finished. I think that people who voted for Trump see this as a stunt and it just confirms what they already think about the liberals. 

One thing you said that is absolutely wrong is your implication that more than a few people at the rally were there for any reason other than to show support for their POTUS. You know that is not true.

I have no idea what you mean by impeachment being a technicality. Whatever the case, it amazes me how far our standards have fallen for our elected leaders. Propagating the election fraud lie with zero evidence (something that a good number of Republican officials are guilty of) was itself an act of sedition, even if you discount the January 6 speech. Would we as a society ever have accepted it even 10 years ago? This proves how much Trump has changed the equation, and certainly not for the better.

As to your other points, in my opinion you're dangerously naive if you think that Trump is done. First of all, he still has a week left in office, and I wouldn't put anything past him. After that, unless he's in jail, which of course I sincerely hope to be the case, the man is not going anywhere. He adores the spotlight and will do anything he can to have praise heaped upon him, so he will continue to stoke the anger of his base and divide the country.

As to your last point, I have a question: if you feel that the vast majority of people went there simply to show support for Trump, then why did such a large number attack the Capitol? It's almost as if something would have to have been urging them to action. I wonder what that could have been?

[Grumps 3,704]

23 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I have no idea what you mean by impeachment being a technicality. Whatever the case, it amazes me how far our standards have fallen for our elected leaders. Propagating the election fraud lie with zero evidence (something that a good number of Republican officials are guilty of) was itself an act of sedition, even if you discount the January 6 speech. Would we as a society ever have accepted it even 10 years ago? This proves how much Trump has changed the equation, and certainly not for the better.

As to your other points, in my opinion you're dangerously naive if you think that Trump is done. First of all, he still has a week left in office, and I wouldn't put anything past him. After that, unless he's in jail, which of course I sincerely hope to be the case, the man is not going anywhere. He adores the spotlight and will do anything he can to have praise heaped upon him, so he will continue to stoke the anger of his base and divide the country.

As to your last point, I have a question: if you feel that the vast majority of people went there simply to show support for Trump, then why did such a large number attack the Capitol? It's almost as if something would have to have been urging them to action. I wonder what that could have been?

By technical, I mean there are specific charges that must be made, and, at least in theory, specific evidence to support the charges. I don't think that Trump saying that he thinks he won the election should be an impeachable offense. Do you? Trump thinks he lost the election unfairly. So did Mrs. Clinton. When she said his presidency was illegitimate was she inciting violence or committing an act of sedition? Of course not! But if Trump does it then it is impeachable because he is a horrible person.

We will see if I am naive`. It sounds like you are saying that because the left is afraid of Trump, that he should be impeached. What do you think he should be in jail for? Should there be charges and a trial first?

A LARGE number attacked the Capitol? Really? What percentage of the people at the rally actually rioted? All we heard for months is that you can't condemn everyone based on the actions of relatively few people. And NOW you can! Isn't that convenient. The left is so excited about the Capitol incident. They have been WAITING for it. They will milk every little drop from it to feed their hatred. They are trying their best to create as much fear as possible before the inauguration. They are hoping for more violence. Then THEY can tell us how they protected us from the monster Trump and his minions.

Trump is horrible and I am glad he is gone, but I don't think we have seen the real monster yet. I hope you are right and I am wrong! Thanks for your reply!

[Leftfield 2,595]

33 minutes ago, Grumps said:

By technical, I mean there are specific charges that must be made, and, at least in theory, specific evidence to support the charges. I don't think that Trump saying that he thinks he won the election should be an impeachable offense. Do you? Trump thinks he lost the election unfairly. So did Mrs. Clinton. When she said his presidency was illegitimate was she inciting violence or committing an act of sedition? Of course not! But if Trump does it then it is impeachable because he is a horrible person.

We will see if I am naive`. It sounds like you are saying that because the left is afraid of Trump, that he should be impeached. What do you think he should be in jail for? Should there be charges and a trial first?

A LARGE number attacked the Capitol? Really? What percentage of the people at the rally actually rioted? All we heard for months is that you can't condemn everyone based on the actions of relatively few people. And NOW you can! Isn't that convenient. The left is so excited about the Capitol incident. They have been WAITING for it. They will milk every little drop from it to feed their hatred. They are trying their best to create as much fear as possible before the inauguration. They are hoping for more violence. Then THEY can tell us how they protected us from the monster Trump and his minions.

Trump is horrible and I am glad he is gone, but I don't think we have seen the real monster yet. I hope you are right and I am wrong! Thanks for your reply!

Grumps, man, I appreciate it, but you're putting more words in my mouth than I am.

First off, we need to clear up that I am not on the left. The vast majority of the time I've voted Republican or Libertarian, so any argument you may posit about a liberal bias fails.

If Trump had just said he thought he lost unfairly, then left it alone and conceded (as Hillary did), we wouldn't be discussing this right now. The fact is he keeps pushing it....and pushing, and pushing, and pushing. Once again, without any evidence (though he certainly keeps promising to release it, doesn't he?), and making outlandish claims about votes suddenly appearing, voting machines switching votes and components being swapped out, how he actually won "in a landslide", etc. 

It's interesting to me that Republicans who back Trump often use past actions from Democrats as cover for what he does. Isn't the Republican Party supposed to have a higher moral standard than the Democrats? That's always been their argument. Certainly electing Trump has taken that high ground away, but you're stomping on it by saying what he is doing is acceptable because Hillary Clinton did it.

In terms of jail, certainly I believe there should be charges and a trial first. I find it beneath you to suggest I think otherwise. Though I certainly believe there's a case for Trump to be found criminally culpable in the Capitol attack, I'm mainly referring to the lawsuits that are certainly waiting for him when he leaves office, particularly with New York. There are suspicions of massive tax fraud/evasion, and I would guess there are plenty of skeletons in his closet that will come to light. He is not an honest person, and the suspicion of many, including me, is he has not built his empire entirely through legal means. I will not state for a fact here and now that he is guilty. We'll wait for the evidence or, if I'm wrong, the lack thereof.

Certainly some have, but I defy you to go back and find where I have ever condemned all Trump supporters for what happened at the Capitol.  I think you'll find quite the opposite. The simple fact is there were a large number of people involved. Hundreds at least, and it looked to me to be thousands, though admittedly I'm no expert at estimating crowds. You don't have to take my word for it. In the recent press conference it was stated that there are already about a hundred people identified, and hundreds more are expected to be charged in the coming months. I would not call that a few.

There is no doubt that politics play a part in the impeachment, but politics always play a part. That doesn't excuse Trump's actions. Recent reports say he gets furious when he hears people compare him to Nixon. I find that hysterical, because I think it's an insult to Nixon.

[Leftfield 2,595]

By the way, most seem to already have forgotten about Trump's call to Brad Raffensperger, though it's part of the Article of Impeachment. That call by itself was justification enough.

[GoAU 1,600]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, first let's establish something we all should agree on:  There are fraudulent votes (non-residents, dead people, ballots filled out for other people, etc.) cast every single election and more than likely have been in every single election all the way back to the first one with George Washington.  Human beings are fallen, sinful creatures who do wrong, dishonest, and sinful things and elections would be no exception.  If there is money, power, or influence to be gained, there you will find dishonest means to obtain it.

What we're really arguing about with these claims of election fraud or "stolen" elections or "legal ballots" is whether there was illegality or fraud of such a massive scale (as in tens of thousands to millions of votes) as to swing a presidential election.  So simply posting some article where some illegal ballots were cast here or there is not proof of anything close to making this a stolen election.  What we need to see is actual evidence of widespread, systemic, election altering fraud.  And thus far I've not seen anything that would even come remotely close to proving such a thing.  In fact, there's no evidence in the states who've been doing vote by mail for several years to decades now that they have any more of an issue with illegal voting than states that don't.  There's no evidence that states who have more relaxed permissions for when someone can get an absentee ballot have significantly more incidences of fraud. 

So make some tweaks here and there if it makes you feel better.  But the end result is going to be more of a performative nature than actually changing who wins elections going forward.

I didn’t specifically state that this election was stolen or that voter fraud played enough of a role to tip the scales.  I have not seen any evidence to this point that proves the election was stolen.  I have said there were irregularities, and there absolutely were.  
 

State voting laws were changed, some say illegitimately.   A series of suspicious events in GA.  Lots of unusual and rushed accommodations due to “COVID”.  But regardless, even if this election wasn’t “stolen” why would we wait until there is massive voter fraud event to ensure that elections are as secure as possible?   You don’t get car insurance AFTER an accident.  I have also never understood the argument that requiring ID equates to voter suppression.   

[TitanTiger 20,472]

17 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I didn’t specifically state that this election was stolen or that voter fraud played enough of a role to tip the scales.  I have not seen any evidence to this point that proves the election was stolen.  I have said there were irregularities, and there absolutely were.

Good.  I'm glad we're on the same page there.  But just realize that in the context of *this* election, when people start carping about voting irregularities, they are typically suggesting (or in some cases saying flat out) that the outcome would have been different if only "legitimate votes" were counted. 

 

Quote

State voting laws were changed, some say illegitimately.

But they weren't, no matter what "some" say.

 

Quote

A series of suspicious events in GA.

...that weren't all that suspicious, just misconstrued and a narrative built around them to create FUD.  The GA votes have been counted and recounted and even some counties had signature verifications done.  Every time nothing changed, the FUD spreaders moved the goal posts and asked for something else.  Trump lost the state fair and square.

 

Quote

 Lots of unusual and rushed accommodations due to “COVID”.

Because COVID is unusual but shouldn't mean people shouldn't be able to vote or that it should be difficult to do because of it.

 

Quote

 But regardless, even if this election wasn’t “stolen” why would we wait until there is massive voter fraud event to ensure that elections are as secure as possible?   You don’t get car insurance AFTER an accident.  I have also never understood the argument that requiring ID equates to voter suppression.   

It doesn't have to, but the way that some states implemented it does.  While some have made sure that anyone who needs a photo ID can get one regardless of ability to pay, and has plenty of open DMVs at hours poor people can access them, and the documentation requirements aren't onerous, and have given plenty of lead time - others have not.  And that's a problem.  It disproportionately affects poor people who often don't have the means, their own transportation, and have less consistent work schedules and such.  And in this country that also means it tends to disproportionately affect racial minorities.

Do everything you can to fix those issues and maybe the accusations of voter suppression won't stick.

[GoAU 1,600]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Good.  I'm glad we're on the same page there.

 

It doesn't have to, but the way that some states implemented it does.  While some have made sure that anyone who needs a photo ID can get one regardless of ability to pay, and has plenty of open DMVs at hours poor people can access them, and the documentation requirements aren't onerous, and have given plenty of lead time - others have not.  And that's a problem.  It disproportionately affects poor people who often don't have the means, their own transportation, and have less consistent work schedules and such.  And in this country that also means it tends to disproportionately affect racial minorities.

Do everything you can to fix those issues and maybe the accusations of voter suppression won't stick.

I think we’re aligned that until fraud is proven, you have to assume it’s not there, as proving a negative is extremely difficult.  There are also a slew of conspiracy theories on both sides, including agitating comments made by third party nations, just to stir the pot and agitate our citizenry.  
 

Do you have the same compassion regarding the difficulty of poor people needing IDs for exercising other Constitutional rights, let’s say like the Second Amendment?   Our society requires identification for all sorts of things - there are no exceptions made there.  By the way I will completely agree that for people over the age of 18, in lieu of a drivers license, state issued ID should be completely free of charge.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Do you have the same compassion regarding the difficulty of poor people needing IDs for exercising other Constitutional rights, let’s say like the Second Amendment?   Our society requires identification for all sorts of things - there are no exceptions made there.

I haven't given it much thought to be honest.  Off the cuff, I would say that even though both rights are among our most important, voting rights are of the highest order.  To take that away from someone based on inability to pay for a required ID is to take away their ability to participate in our democratic system.

[GoAU 1,600]

53 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I haven't given it much thought to be honest.  Off the cuff, I would say that even though both rights are among our most important, voting rights are of the highest order.  To take that away from someone based on inability to pay for a required ID is to take away their ability to participate in our democratic system.

I absolutely agree - cost shouldn’t be an issue in any way.  The ID should be completely free. 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

I absolutely agree - cost shouldn’t be an issue in any way.  The ID should be completely free. 

You can get a free Election Identification Certificate in Texas at your friendly local DPS...just have to take the time to fill out an application.

A photo ID, not even a driver's license, mind you, is a damned low bar to clear. I'm good with one free photo ID if you can't afford one. 

If the franchise is that sacred to people, then a vote should be treated as tantamount to evidence in a trial. Authenticity and an established chain of custody should be of the highest priority. 

I'll vote in person as long as I am physically able, and that is because I can be 100% sure that the ballot I cast is submitted on my behalf, with no intermediaries involved.

I would rather put time and money into extending opportunity for in-person voting, because it has been, and always will be, the standard for legitimacy.  

Extend polling hours...hell, grocery store hours. 6A to 10P.

Extend early voting time frames.

Increase polling locations.

Make presidential election Tuesday a federal holiday. 

Find some way to increase participation in being a poll worker...that is something on my radar, actually.

I'm sure there are other things that could be implemented to ensure that the vote is as legitimate as possible.

This will be an unpopular stance with some of you, but voting SHOULD be a bit of effort and have some intentionality to it.

That doesn't mean it has to have Byzantine requirements...and before the screeching starts, I know there are people that have physical limitations, etc. that prevent in-person voting. There are also procedures in place for those people to be able to cast a vote, and that is clearly OK.

Absentee ballots for military or others who may have legitimate reasons to be away from their home voting location? Already procedures in place for that. Cool.

Organizing transportation to voting places? Cool...carpool, public transportation if available,

I guess it is the teacher in me, but cheating and inauthentic work grinds my gears more than any other thing a kid could do academically. I hate it, and I frame it to them as intellectual theft...you're stealing something from another person, it's just not tangible.

In our current virtual school world (95% of my students are online), even if they have their cameras on during a test, I have no way of knowing if they've got multiple devices open (we don't have monitoring capabilities with a lockdown browser like colleges do), so I could be looking right at them and they could still be cheating their asses off. Multiple versions filters some of it, but I have pretty much conceded that grades are basically bull**** this year, even more so than usual.

At least if they're in person, I can have them put all of their stuff up front and look them square in the eye, and I know that I'm getting their own work, in their writing.

So, to tie this back to voting, I would rather the focus be on authenticity. Does that ballot truly belong to the person it says it belongs to? The best way to ensure that is to have someone cast a ballot in person, and facilitating THAT would be my preference.

If our uniparty politicians have any shards of integrity roaming around in their venal political bodies, voting integrity would be among their first priorities...I won't hold my breath on that, though.

[aubearcat 2,137]

A little humor 

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

22 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok, first let's establish something we all should agree on:  There are fraudulent votes (non-residents, dead people, ballots filled out for other people, etc.) cast every single election and more than likely have been in every single election all the way back to the first one with George Washington.  Human beings are fallen, sinful creatures who do wrong, dishonest, and sinful things and elections would be no exception.  If there is money, power, or influence to be gained, there you will find dishonest means to obtain it.

What we're really arguing about with these claims of election fraud or "stolen" elections or "legal ballots" is whether there was illegality or fraud of such a massive scale (as in tens of thousands to millions of votes) as to swing a presidential election.  So simply posting some article where some illegal ballots were cast here or there is not proof of anything close to making this a stolen election.  What we need to see is actual evidence of widespread, systemic, election altering fraud.  And thus far I've not seen anything that would even come remotely close to proving such a thing.  In fact, there's no evidence in the states who've been doing vote by mail for several years to decades now that they have any more of an issue with illegal voting than states that don't.  There's no evidence that states who have more relaxed permissions for when someone can get an absentee ballot have significantly more incidences of fraud. 

So make some tweaks here and there if it makes you feel better.  But the end result is going to be more of a performative nature than actually changing who wins elections going forward.

Do we really need to say what has been said a dozen or more time here?

[AUDub 11,147]

McConnell on the Senate floor sounds like he's going to convict. That unfetters the caucus. 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/11/2021 at 10:11 PM, GoAU said:

Sticks and stones and all that....   Because I don’t agree with you- LOL.   What a bad little liberal you are, not very inclusive.  Then again, libs are only inclusive of those that agree with them, right?  

 

What specifically did he say that would constitute. “High crime pr misdemeanor”.  A quote or some specific evidence would be nice.  

He created a movement - based on his big lie - that attacked the congress in the U.S. Capitol.  I'd say that qualifies.

Presumably you reside at the "just take orders" level of the military. 

Thank God for that.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/11/2021 at 5:17 PM, AUUSN said:

I’m going to have to double check number 4. I think that will require an additional vote to bar from holding federal office again.

You're right, but it's a simple majority vote.