1 in 5 Ballots Rejected as Fraud Is Charged in N.J. Mail-In Election

[homersapien 11,447]

It seems that Florida Republicans have no problem with voting by mail:

Florida GOP doctors Trump tweet to solve mail-in voting problem

Republicans privately fear the president is endangering one of the secrets to the party’s success in the nation’s biggest swing state.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/15/florida-mail-in-voting-trump-362519

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Of course not.

Well, I would agree that it would be difficult to riot, loot and turn over cop cars via ZOOM, but protesting could be done effectively.

[homersapien 11,447]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, I would agree that it would be difficult to riot, loot and turn over cop cars via ZOOM, but protesting could be done effectively.

You said protest.  I meant protest.

But I see what you did there.  Equate non-violent protests (a constitutional right) with rioting and looting.  That just the sort of rhetorical dishonesty that Trump relies on, which is hardly surprising.

A large part - perhaps the main part - of participating in a protest is make a personal statement, in person.  Doing it on Zoom sort of defeats the purpose, even if it were possible, which it's not. 

And to my eye, there were more protestors wearing masks than MAGAs at the Trump rally, which was indoors.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I use curbside or delivery — even for protests. Can I just use the drive thru to vote?

I actually did do a drive-thru protest at the airport once on accident. There was a protest going on at Hartsfield-Jackson outside baggage claim at the same time I had to pick somebody up. I saw some friends there. There was a guy driving through in his falafel truck blasting patriotic songs. It all seems very quaint now. 

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You said protest.  I meant protest.

But I see what you did there.  Equate non-violent protests (a constitutional right) with rioting and looting.  That just the sort of rhetorical dishonesty that Trump relies on, which is hardly surprising.

A large part - perhaps the main part - of participating in a protest is make a personal statement, in person.  Doing it on Zoom sort of defeats the purpose, even if it were possible, which it's not. 

And to my eye, there were more protestors wearing masks than MAGAs at the Trump rally, which was indoors.

 

I meant protest too.  The violence broke out of the in-person protest, if the protest did not occur in-person the violence would not have occurred.  Pretty simple. Protest via ZOOM and no violence.

By the way, voting is a form of protest and voting in person just means more.  It’s too bad people can’t be civil.

[homersapien 11,447]

22 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I meant protest too.  The violence broke out of the in-person protest, if the protest did not occur in-person the violence would not have occurred.  Pretty simple. Protest via ZOOM and no violence.

By the way, voting is a form of protest and voting in person just means more.  It’s too bad people can’t be civil.

There were many protests, many of which were non-violent. You are equating protestors - in general - to rioters for the purpose of feeding your political bias. 

It's no different that saying Trump supporters are white supremacists (for example). 

I could point to numerous examples that support that statement - including Trump himself - but critical thinking prevents me making such a generalization.

 

[savorytiger 182]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If we go to vote in person I would expect extreme mitigation measures to be in place.  After all, when I have voted in the past most of the volunteers in the polling place are seniors citizens.  I would suggest you apply for an absentee ballot to alleviate your fears.  The difference is that you request the absentee ballot and the state sends it to you while vote by mail the state sends the ballot to the registered voter at the address on record (which may or may not be accurate).  I’m sure you can see the potential for fraud in this type of voting process.

If you don’t like the *going to the store* comparison; how about the *protesting inequalities* comparison?  After all, several officials have told us that they were exempt from massive crowds because they were expressing their 1st Amendments rights to peaceably assemble.  Won’t the right to vote be just as essential?

Countries that have switched over to a democracy have risked life and limb to vote in elections.  I do wonder what they think of our concern over a virus that at least 97% of the infected survive?

If our country wasn’t so in love with litigation, this would be a non-event.

Protect yourself when you go about your life and stop living in fear, JMO.

 

It's not about protecting myself. I'm young enough and healthy enough that I'm not at high risk. It's about protecting others that are at risk, and the fact that at a high enough number of infected, the number of deaths of low risk individuals is too high. Also, why are we comparing ourselves to countries that are fighting for democracy? That's not the bar to measure the United States on (insert "MAGA, but only compared to 3rd world countries" joke). We *should* be concerned about a virus with a 97% survival rate because a 3% death rate is 10 million Americans. I doubt we'll even approach a million, but the 138k deaths we have now is already far past what should be acceptable for the most powerful nation in the world, and people haven't learned from that failure.

Homer covered the protest analogy fine enough. Stop being dense about that Zoom call protest. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

Homey's right: To Protest is not to Riot.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Protest: 

Riot

[savorytiger 182]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Homey's right: To Protest is not to Riot.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

 

[DKW 86 7,440]

Only when the authorities didn’t listen. Riot is not the first and only choice. 

 

WAIT...SOMEONE ACTUALLY JUST ADMITTED THAT RIOTS SHOULD BE THE FIRST THING PEOPLE GO TO?

OMG, how stupid...

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Homey's right: To Protest is not to Riot.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

The difference in the two photos is MLK was a true leader that people followed.  Today’s *protest* is bent on destruction, the question is; to what end?  If you can’t see this, you aren’t looking.

[savorytiger 182]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The difference in the two photos is MLK was a true leader that people followed.  Today’s *protest* is bent on destruction, the question is; to what end?  If you can’t see this, you aren’t looking.

Support the claim that "Today’s *protest* is bent on destruction". What percentage of the protests that are happening cause destruction? Honest question. I've looked into it and haven't come up with anything concrete.

If we find it, something we can compare with is: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/usa-end-unlawful-police-violence-against-black-lives-matter-protests/

[homersapien 11,447]

31 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The difference in the two photos is MLK was a true leader that people followed.  Today’s *protest* is bent on destruction, the question is; to what end?  If you can’t see this, you aren’t looking.

You are the one who is being willfully blind to the fact most of the recent protests - which have been occurring in virtually every city by people of all ethnic backgrounds, have been peaceful.  Deliberately peaceful.

You sound to me like you are just focusing on incidents of violence in order to characterize and dismiss all legitimate protests against systemic racism.  Just like Trump.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

34 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

Support the claim that "Today’s *protest* is bent on destruction". What percentage of the protests that are happening cause destruction? Honest question. I've looked into it and haven't come up with anything concrete.

If we find it, something we can compare with is: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/usa-end-unlawful-police-violence-against-black-lives-matter-protests/

Typical leftest view point.  It’s not the percentage.  It could be, in terms of time, that 99% of the protests are peaceful, but the destruction in $$$$ (and life’s lost) is huge. Minnesota is petitioning the Government for reimbursement of $$$ lost.  Is this something the tax payers are responsible for?  It has been reported that BLM and some politicians want to dismantle the system are replace it.  One has to ask, because it is not suggested, replace it with what?  As the Dems like to point out, “never let a crisis go to waste”.

Troubling times, but you keep on focusing on what you are being feed, nothing to see here.

[savorytiger 182]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Typical leftest view point.  It’s not the percentage.  It could be, in terms of time, that 99% of the protests are peaceful, but the destruction in $$$$ (and life’s lost) is huge. Minnesota is petitioning the Government for reimbursement of $$$ lost.  Is this something the tax payers are responsible for?  It has been reported that BLM and some politicians want to dismantle the system are replace it.  One has to ask, because it is not suggested, replace it with what?  As the Dems like to point out, “never let a crisis go to waste”.

Troubling times, but you keep on focusing on what you are being feed, nothing to see here.

It feels like we're not going to get a decent discussion here. War eagle and stay safe.

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are the one who is being willfully blind to the fact most of the recent protests - which have been occurring in virtually every city by people of all ethnic backgrounds, have been peaceful.  Deliberately peaceful.

You sound to me like you are just focusing on incidents of violence in order to characterize and dismiss all legitimate protests against systemic racism.  Just like Trump.

 

This is so far from the truth.  I agree there have been peaceful protests and, related to time, mostly peaceful.  However, the destruction in $$$ have been tremendous and to what end?  This goes beyond just upset at the system and as BLM and other politicians have stated they want to tear down the system and start over.  Nobody is talking about what they will replace the system with.  Is this not a little frightening to you?  It typical mob rule, revolution....burn it down....now what.

By the way, the destruction has also been by all ethnic backgrounds, but it’s still unlawful and wasteful.  The destruction doesn’t really help the cause does it?

Your last statement is conjecture that is unfounded.  You like to bring everything back to Trump, why is that?  Do you think if Trump is out of the White House all this goes away?  That would not be logical.

I do worry about lawlessness that seems to run rampant in loosely run cities.

The killer, dressed entirely in black and wearing a black mask, followed the young technology entrepreneur from the elevator of his luxury condo building into his apartment.

Then he used an electrical stun gun to immobilize the entrepreneur, Fahim Saleh, detectives believe.

Some time after, the assailant killed Mr. Saleh, decapitated him and dismembered his body with an electric saw.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/nyregion/fahim-saleh-lower-east-side-murder.html

and

 

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

5 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

It feels like we're not going to get a decent discussion here. War eagle and stay safe.

I’m giving my point of view and you can’t see it, so we are not going to have a decent discussion?  Yes, keep enjoying your echo chamber.

[homersapien 11,447]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m giving my point of view and you can’t see it, so we are not going to have a decent discussion?  Yes, keep enjoying your echo chamber.

You have the typical conservative mindset - dominated by fear instead of reason.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have the typical conservative mindset - dominated by fear instead of reason.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

This is your typical pigeonholing .  You even cherry-picked the fear instead of reason part.  You usually like to shut down conversation that way.

It is true that I am a conservative that can see negatives, but that is mainly due to my profession I spent 34 years in.  Outside the work environment I don’t dwell on car wrecks, spiders on faces and open wounds crawling with maggots.

I do like my world organized, but know that outside of that world I can’t control others and really don’t want to.  So I don’t fit into your typical conservative box.

[homersapien 11,447]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is your typical pigeonholing .  You even cherry-picked the fear instead of reason part.  You usually like to shut down conversation that way.

It is true that I am a conservative that can see negatives, but that is mainly due to my profession I spent 34 years in.  Outside the work environment I don’t dwell on car wrecks, spiders on faces and open wounds crawling with maggots.

I do like my world organized, but know that outside of that world I can’t control others and really don’t want to.  So I don’t fit into your typical conservative box.

 

I think I "pigeonholed" you pretty well.  Just look at your posts:

"Nobody is talking about what they will replace the system with.  Is this not a little frightening to you?  It typical mob rule, revolution....burn it down....now what."

(Hint: the system is not about to be "replaced" with "mob rule", "revolution and burn it down".  That's the sort of hyperbole that sounds like it came directly from one of Trump's speeches, and its designed for people just like you.)

So no, I am not frightened. 

Change often comes with unfortunate disruption (which is why conservatives fear it).  I don't support the disruption - which is obviously counterproductive to the necessary change - but I welcome the change. 

It's long overdue. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

Change often comes with unfortunate disruption (which is why conservatives fear it).  I don't support the disruption - which is obviously counterproductive to the necessary change - but I welcome the change. 

Working within the system to change is what America is about, the disruption is the revolution part.  If the mob wants to replace the system (with what?) it will come by means outside the current system and is concerning.  The impatience by some is where we are at this time and cooler heads have to prevail.  Change is evolution, rapid change is revolution.  Evolving is a good thing.

[homersapien 11,447]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Working within the system to change is what America is about, the disruption is the revolution part.  If the mob wants to replace the system (with what?) it will come by means outside the current system and is concerning.  The impatience by some is where we are at this time and cooler heads have to prevail.  Change is evolution, rapid change is revolution.  Evolving is a good thing.

Characterizing thousands of predominately peaceful protests - held in most cities in this country as lawless "mobs"- because some anarchists took advantage of the opportunity in a few of them - is the issue here.

But to your point, those lawless and opportunistic perpetrators of violence (the "mob") are not going to "change" anything.  Nor do they represent an existential threat to our country.  They are a local - not national - problem.

The protestors of undue police violence have a legitimate case for protesting.  Such public expression demanding immediate change our government is written into our constitution. 

It's exactly what fuels change - including the "evolutionary" change of which you speak.  Without it,  we won't "evolve", we won't change at all. We have decades of racist history that demonstrates that.  Just like biological evolution, social evolution occurs in spurts.  It's not always a long, continuous,  measured process.  We as a country are in immediate need to make such a jump addressing racism.  Letting our leadership know the majority of our citizens are ready for such immediate change is a critical need that the protests are filling, in spite of the unfortunate instances of violence.  So, in general, these protests should be welcomed, not feared.

While the actions of rioters need to be addressed, but dismissing legitimate protests by characterizing them as "mobs" is not helping.  That is what Trump is doing.  He's trying to position himself as a savior of order.  It's "law and order" redux.  (I am sure that - for his purposes - he would like to see more violence, rather than less.)  He's trying to appeal to people such as yourself.  Don't fall for it.

Furthermore - just like the occasional violence associated with protests - over reaction by law enforcement to many of these otherwise peaceable protests - such as use of teargas - is often counter-productive. But then, fear-based reactions are often counterproductive.

If anything, such over-reaction foments more violence.  (Trump is counting on it.)

 

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

because some anarchists took advantage of the opportunity in a few of them - is the issue here

I can agree with this statement, those anarchists are taking advantage of a legitimate concern of the American people.

 

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

But to your point, those lawless and opportunistic perpetrators of violence (the "mob") are not going to "change" anything.  Nor do they represent an existential threat to our country.  They are a local - not national - problem.

The local nature of the anarchists seem to be in Oregon, but has spread to other areas with the taking down of statues that are just willful destruction.  The legitimate case for protesting has morphed into this chaos, mainly because there is no leadership of the legitimate protestors.  BLM, the organization, is all for the chaos and no single person has risen to the forefront of the movement to set realistic goals and a solution, as far as I can tell. 

As far as not going to change anything, they already have changed things as Dem run cities are defunding the police and crime is increasing a high percentage.  This is pure appeasements to the “mob” and is manifesting itself from the bottom up, not top down.  It is good to let our government know how we feel, but you have to let the government have time to *do the right thing*.  That is not happening. 

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's exactly what fuels change - including the "evolutionary" change of which you speak.  Without it,  we won't "evolve", we won't change at all. We have decades of racist history that demonstrates that.  Just like biological evolution, social evolution occurs in spurts.  It's not always a long, continuous,  measured process.  We as a country are in immediate need to make such a jump addressing racism.  Letting our leadership know the majority of our citizens are ready for such immediate change is a critical need that the protests are filling, in spite of the unfortunate instances of violence.  So, in general, these protests should be welcomed, not feared.

Mostly agree.

For the rest of your post, when the rioters are mixed in with the peaceful protestors it is hard for the police to separate who is just protesting and who are there to cause harm.  If you have seen the *peaceful* protestors get in the face of the police that are just doing their jobs it must be difficult to remain calm.  So, if the aim of the protest is against police brutality, why would a *peaceful* protestor agitate the police?  To what end?  To prove their point that police are heavy handed thugs?  Talk about counter-productive.  This is why things escalate into what we see now.  

I’m not sure any of this would be happening if it wasn’t an election year.  Very sad.

[homersapien 11,447]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not sure any of this would be happening if it wasn’t an election year.  Very sad.

It's happening because of a series of recent incidents of murders of black people.  The Floyd killing in particular was inflammatory.  This should be obvious.

The only connection to the election is in the fact Trump is fanning the flames rhetorically, symbolically (confederate flags)  and actively (gassing peaceful protestors at the national cathedral, unmarked federal forces).  More violence serves his purpose.

"Law and Order" is an old tactic designed to appeal to the latent racism of his supporters. Trump thinks it will solidify the support of his base, but it will only serve to help his defeat. 

Don't fall for it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,991]

45 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's happening because of a series of recent incidents of murders of black people.  The Floyd killing in particular was inflammatory.  This should be obvious.

The only connection to the election is in the fact Trump is fanning the flames rhetorically, symbolically (confederate flags)  and actively (gassing peaceful protestors at the national cathedral, unmarked federal forces).  More violence serves his purpose.

"Law and Order" is an old tactic designed to appeal to the latent racism of his supporters. Trump thinks it will solidify the support of his base, but it will only serve to help his defeat. 

Don't fall for it. 

I have to disagree here (I know, you’re shocked).  The Floyd killing was tragic and needed to be brought to light, however, the outrage has been hi-jacked to suit other purposes other than the brutality of the police.  Why would that be?  A few reasons might be the *Bernie Bros* are still upset Biden is the presumptive Dem nominee, the call for dismantling the police and the appeasements allowed in Democratic run cities that enables further mischief, the call to tear down the system and rebuild it (capitalism is bad, socialism good; see AOC, Omar and others), the perceived weakness of Trump’s campaign strategy as reported daily by the MSM and Biden saying the police are the enemy.  There is blood in the water, so to speak.

The Dems seemed to care more about winning this election than what is good for the country.  This *win at all costs* could be very costly, as if Biden wins he will not be able to walk back the momentum that has been created. JMO.  I’m not sure that whatever Biden has planned in the way of reform, will appease the crowds.  Will the mentality of the protesters (peaceful and non-peaceful alike) be patient enough to let Biden’s policies work?

We’ve already has a couple of *autonomous* that haven’t worked out well and the authorities have acquiesced which will only embolden further escalation.  There is no respect for authority and that is dangerous.

The FBI has run the most back ground checks for new gun owners than they ever have.  A lot of people are worried.  Hint: current gun owners already have had guns and therefore have had a background check.  Are they all conservatives that are living in fear, as your article mentioned earlier?  Or are these liberals that are seeing what may lie ahead?

People are concerned whether you see it or not.