2000 Mules: A tour de force exploring the limits of how many suckers there are willing to pay for fantasy.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

So I've heard of 2000 Mules and seen several people on here reference it, but oddly I hadn't seen media coverage of it even from traditionally conservative outlets and right wing personalities. People who are all in on the "election was stolen" conspiracy seemed to think this film was going to change the entire conversation about the election and election integrity...i was skeptical and rightly so it seems.

Unsurprisingly, the documentary doesn't offer any proof whatsoever of voter fraud and instead claims that it has proof that various cell phones were pinged/tracked to be in the general area of voting drop boxes multiple different times. This is, according to the movie, proof that "mules" were collecting ballots from secret places and then carrying them to mass deposit them in drop boxes to pad Joe Biden's numbers. Ultimately, the film doesn't know who most of these people are or have any video or corroborating evidence that any of this ballot harvesting/collecting actually  took place, but they claim this is what happened and that the only way that their claims/theory can proven is if the Government/FBI take over and do a proper investigation. Right wing talking heads in the film even seem to admit that this film doesn't give hard evidence of anything and that the truth may never be known.

 

so yeah, a lot of nothing as predicted. D'Souza is making bank on it though. There is A LOT of money to be made in the business of "stolen election" theater 

Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules Is a Hilarious Mockumentary

https://www.thebulwark.com/dinesh-dsouzas-2000-mules-is-a-hilarious-mockumentary/

Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules is Plandemic for election truthers. For the non-insane, it’s a hilarious mockumentary. Not that D’Souza cares what the non-insane think: He has discovered that there are enough suckers out there to keep him laughing all the way to the bank.

Released by the Salem Media Group, 2000 Mules aspires to be a work of serious investigative reporting which will rock the foundations of American democracy. In reality, 2000 Mules is an investigative documentary in roughly the same way Reno 911 was a hard-hitting look at real-life police work. Though that doesn’t mean that D’Souza’s cash-grab won’t further pollute the political system. For instance, Kari Lake, who can’t wait to get elected governor of Arizona so she can jail her political opponents, is championing the film—which ends with a plea for law enforcement to take up D’Souza’s cause.

Here’s the elevator pitch for 2000 Mules: D’Souza’s buddies at True the Vote spent $2 million on cellphone geotracking data—which he describes as “digital DNA”—that they say proves “mules” were paid to illegally “traffick” thousands of ballots from non-profit “stash houses” into drop-off ballot boxes.

All D’Souza really has—if the cellphone data is real and is really what he represents it as being—is some evidence that some people made frequent trips in areas around ballot drop-off boxes which, by design, were usually placed in heavily-traveled areas for convenience. Putting that aside, who are these mules? Who paid them? Where is the evidence of people making repeated trips to illegally stuff drop-boxes with ballots? What non-profits were involved? These questions are not even asked, let alone answered, in the movie. The theory of the case relies almost entirely on digital maps with dots and squiggles, supposedly demonstrating the questionable movement of the “mules.” Boom-Diggity. All that’s left is for the FBI to take it from here. Or something.

2000 Mules doesn’t survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims. See them here, here, here, and here. But, let’s stipulate that the film’s purpose isn’t really to present facts. Because if it were true that D’Souza had rock-solid evidence of widespread voter fraud in his possession, would a true patriot like him be selling that evidence for $29.99 per download? Bwahahaha. (In defense of D’Souza, that $29.99 was only the premium VOD price. This week he dropped it to $19.99 to buy or just $14.99 to rent. Or you can get the movie free by purchasing an annual subscription to his Rumble channel!)

It’s better to view the film as a performance piece, a comedic triumph where the joke is on the rubes gullible enough to give D’Souza their money.

---

Some quick backstory: The people behind True the Vote—Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips–have been unsuccessfully hunting the Loch Ness Monster of voter fraud for many years. After the 2016 election, Phillips claimed he “verified” that more than 3 million votes were illegally cast by “non-citizens.” Piggybacking on Phillips, Trump launched a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” to pursue this and other claims. Chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the commission ultimately found no evidence of widespread voter fraud and disbanded without ever producing a report. (Since producing such a report would contradict Trump’s kooky allies.)

After the 2020 election, True the Vote sought $7 million to chase down new voter fraud stories and shop them to GOP consultants in hopes of getting some courtroom or member of Congress to take them seriously. But even in the cluster that was the Kraken #StopTheSteal show, they had no takers. It was such a disaster that one of True the Vote’s biggest donors, who gifted the organization $2.5 million, took the group to court to get his money back, citing their failed efforts.

All of which goes to say that True the Vote’s tall tales are too dumb even for its biggest supporters to go along with anymore. D’Souza, however, is happy to scrape up the bull**** and repackage it for the direct-to-consumer market.

---

Some of the film’s funniest moments come when D’Souza summons his fellow Salem Media Group talkers—Dennis Prager, Eric Metaxes, Seb Gorka, and Charlie Kirk—for a meeting of the minds to discuss their thoughts about election fraud before and after viewing D’Souza’s movie.

The “before” meeting amounts to an assortment of pronouncements about how none of these very fine people believe that Biden won. They cite the massive turnout in the election, GOP success down-ballot, Trump’s ability to draw large crowds, and apparent popularity in the face of withering media coverage.

Kirk offers that “millions of Americans know something went wrong, and they have little pieces, and no one’s really put it together.” Prager, somewhat of an outlier in the group, says he wants someone to “show me the proof” of fraud. Which sets the stage for D’Souza to helpfully put the pieces together.

The movie draws heavy suspicions about people who dropped off ballots early in the morning, wore gloves to drop off ballots, and took photos of drop boxes. All this is drummed up as proof of nefarious activity captured on surveillance video. Coupled with the True the Vote’s geotracking data, the viewer is led to believe these were the “mules” making repeat trips to unnamed non-profit offices to collect ballots and “traffick” them to drop boxes. One problem: They have no video showing these individuals making repeat trips to said non-profits or drop locations, or evidence they were paid to do so. Also, one of the so-called “mules” presented in the film has already been investigated by Georgia officials and no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

No matter. Engelbrecht and Phillips make their presentation to the group and the guys jump on the clips accordingly. What Salem wants, Salem gets.

Questioning why someone would drop off ballots late at night or early in the morning is a common refrain, even though drop boxes were implemented precisely so voters could drop off their ballots any time they chose. For this, these unnamed individuals are depicted as dangerous people. Phillips described them as “not grandma out walking her dog.” They have “bad backgrounds, bad reputations, we’ve had encounters with several who are not terribly positive.”

“Violent guys?” D’Souza asked.

“Can be,” Phillips replied. “They are interested in one thing, that’s money.”

But even the Salem hosts seem wise to the game and acknowledge that D’Souza hasn’t, and won’t be able to prove anything. Gorka sums it up with this non sequitur: “It’s the perfect crime because it cannot be curated after it’s committed.”

Kirk says: “I don’t think we will ever know the full story and what makes this crime so compelling and unique is that once the ballot enters the system it’s really hard to reverse engineer it. But when you have the cell phone geolocation data and then the actual footage . . . it explains the sudden spike of Biden support that we saw late at night.”

At this point, all that’s left is for law enforcement to intervene. “There’s an easy way to bust it,” D’Souza says. “Law enforcement has to step in . . . go interview the mules. Who paid you? Where did you get the money?”

Which satisfies Prager enough to bellow:

“They have ruined election day in the United States of America. That’s provable, and that is enough for me to fight the left with every fiber in my body!” This counts as a conversion. But, considering the fact Prager is someone who also believes the “left is destroying Western civilization,” it’s not like he needed any pretext from D’Souza to declare total war on the Democrats. That’s just a regular day at the office for the old man.

---

The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro reviewed 2000 Mules and said, “my problem with the documentary” is that “there are dots that need filling in.” He said:

You can question all the ballot harvesting; you can take for granted that all the geolocation data that they’re using is actually true . . . that does not mean all those ballots are illegal votes. . . . . What you need is actual evidence of people going to multiple drop boxes that isn’t just the cell phone data moving past the drop boxes. . . I guess what I would say is an answer that’s gonna make nobody happy. I think that the data is really interesting. I think that it’s really suspicious for sure, I don’t think it’s just positive that this alone shifted the election . . . I think the conclusion of the film is not justified by the premises of the film itself. There are a bunch of dots that need to be connected. Maybe they will be connected, but they haven’t been connected in the film.

But I suspect that D’Souza is delighted with even the critical reviews. A hate watch is still a watch. All the people talking and writing about 2000 Mules means more relevance and more downloads and more income. Despite being released only on “non-cancelable” platforms, D’Souza says the film has grossed $10 million.

What burns D’Souza are the people who won’t give him attention—especially those at Fox News and Newsmax. And why shouldn’t he be? The movie’s storyline, complete with a brown menace subplot, is tailor-made for their audiences. At one point in the film, a woman, who keeps her identity hidden, says she worked as a “mule” in Yuma County, Arizona, on behalf of an organization that collected ballots from Hispanic people who were unable for various reasons to get to the polls. “Most of the Hispanics that live in the town are not well educated as far as the law . . . I call it the Mexican mafia, seriously because they work like that.”

How could Fox and Newsmax resist this premium content? Probably because the executives at these infotainment companies are wary of fighting another round of lawsuits for pushing bogus election claims. Dinesh D’Souza is judgment proof. Fox and Newsmax aren’t.

Donald Trump is mad about the Fox blackout, too. He gave the film a glitzy premiere at Mar-a-Lago, and still, no love from Tucker Carlson. Waaaah.

“Fox News is no longer Fox News,” Trump posted on his Truth Social account. “They won’t even show or discuss the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time, “2000 Mules.” The Radical Left Democrats are thrilled – They don’t want the TRUTH to get out.”

In a way, the pairing of 2000 Mules and Truth Social is perfect: A pretend social media company doing PR for a fake documentary, with both siphoning off dollars from gullible superfans.

It would be funny if these people weren’t also the past and possible future of the United States government.

Edited May 17, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[jj3jordan 2,060]

I have seen it. The data is real as are the tracking. They never say the ballots are fake. Although I believe they are.  They say that only family members can legally cast ballots for someone else.  There is no good reason for one person to visit 10 drop boxes on one night with multiple ballots each time at 3 am wearing gloves. Do you know a plausible explanation for this? And all of the mules did visit certain non profits also. Don’t you think that is just a little weird? If the suspicion was that republicans did this would you be more interested? They have all the names of the people and the non profits. They just did not want to identify them publicly.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

53 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I have seen it. The data is real as are the tracking. They never say the ballots are fake. Although I believe they are.  They say that only family members can legally cast ballots for someone else.  There is no good reason for one person to visit 10 drop boxes on one night with multiple ballots each time at 3 am wearing gloves. Do you know a plausible explanation for this? And all of the mules did visit certain non profits also. Don’t you think that is just a little weird? If the suspicion was that republicans did this would you be more interested? They have all the names of the people and the non profits. They just did not want to identify them publicly.

 

Why not? 

If the entire point of this  documentary is to uncover the truth and blow the lid off this grand Democrat conspiracy to fraudulently influence our elections why aren't these nonprofits named, questioned, investigated? Why not act like a real journalist and call, approach the workers/founders, set up some stings or covert surveillance on these places? Do some digging...bring out the 'truth'? 

Do they have video evidence of these mulls taking handfuls of ballots and stuffing them into boxes, or is that just the belief/assumption based on the tracking data? 

 

My point is that this movie was made to confirm the beliefs that people like you already have, while at the same time not directly implicating any specific people or organizations because D'souza knows that outside of taking this tracking data and talking about what they 'think' it means, he's got nothing. 

Shapiro, a right wing conservative commentator has a very real interest in believing in and proving Democratic fraud, even admits that the film isn't able to cash the checks that it's premise is trying to write. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Why not? 

If the entire point of this  documentary is to uncover the truth and blow the lid off this grand Democrat conspiracy to fraudulently influence our elections why aren't these nonprofits named, questioned, investigated? Why not act like a real journalist and call, approach the workers/founders, set up some stings or covert surveillance on these places? Do some digging...bring out the 'truth'? 

Do they have video evidence of these mulls taking handfuls of ballots and stuffing them into boxes, or is that just the belief/assumption based on the tracking data? 

 

My point is that this movie was made to confirm the beliefs that people like you already have, while at the same time not directly implicating any specific people or organizations because D'souza knows that outside of taking this tracking data and talking about what they 'think' it means, he's got nothing. 

Shapiro, a right wing conservative commentator has a very real interest in believing in and proving Democratic fraud, even admits that the film isn't able to cash the checks that it's premise is trying to write. 

There is video of all these mules stuffing 5-10 ballots in multiple boxes. You can see the faces on some. Most try to cover them to reduce recognizability with hats and glasses. I don’t know why they are not exposing individuals or agencies. Maybe some legal hurdles are involved. I would love an explanation also for the actions all these people took.  I know you would not approve if the shoe were on the other foot.

[AU9377 5,035]

9 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I have seen it. The data is real as are the tracking. They never say the ballots are fake. Although I believe they are.  They say that only family members can legally cast ballots for someone else.  There is no good reason for one person to visit 10 drop boxes on one night with multiple ballots each time at 3 am wearing gloves. Do you know a plausible explanation for this? And all of the mules did visit certain non profits also. Don’t you think that is just a little weird? If the suspicion was that republicans did this would you be more interested? They have all the names of the people and the non profits. They just did not want to identify them publicly.

It is dark by 6pm, it is cold on the first Tuesday in November and they were working overtime calling everyone to make sure that they had gotten their ballots in on time.  There is ZERO evidence that the ballots were in any way fraudulent ballots.  Laws differ from state to state on who can put them in the drop box.  It is fairly silly that any post man can drop them off, but we are so deeply concerned about people working with a campaign dropping them off.  Is that really any different than giving people a ride to the polls?

Those ballots have verification safeguards.  If the ballot cast is not the ballot of a registered voter, that ballot isn't counted.  If their signature doesn't match, that ballot isn't counted.  I understand the frustration.  The harder you make it to vote, the less likely people that are economically disadvantaged will vote.  The harder you make it to vote, the less likely people with little education will vote. That is just how it is.

The average person doesn't even understand the difference between a  primary and a general election.  When people that historically haven't voted in large numbers all of a sudden decide to vote, results are impacted.  That doesn't mean that those results aren't valid.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

It is dark by 6pm, it is cold on the first Tuesday in November and they were working overtime calling everyone to make sure that they had gotten their ballots in on time.  There is ZERO evidence that the ballots were in any way fraudulent ballots.  Laws differ from state to state on who can put them in the drop box.  It is fairly silly that any post man can drop them off, but we are so deeply concerned about people working with a campaign dropping them off.  Is that really any different than giving people a ride to the polls?

Those ballots have verification safeguards.  If the ballot cast is not the ballot of a registered voter, that ballot isn't counted.  If their signature doesn't match, that ballot isn't counted.  I understand the frustration.  The harder you make it to vote, the less likely people that are economically disadvantaged will vote.  The harder you make it to vote, the less likely people with little education will vote. That is just how it is.

The average person doesn't even understand the difference between a  primary and a general election.  When people that historically haven't voted in large numbers all of a sudden decide to vote, results are impacted.  That doesn't mean that those results aren't valid.

Why scatter them in small numbers to numerous drop boxes? If you are pressed for time and working overtime and it gets dark early why not use the closest box and drop them en masse? That makes more sense doesn’t it? Why drive all over town? Sorry but you are lousy at excuse making. The safeguards are great if they are implemented. But if you send everybody home at 10:30 and tell them to return at six to begin counting again but two people pull out boxes of ballots and resume counting alone then you have lost the safeguards. By the time everybody gets back the ballots are separated from the envelopes so there is no more signature verification.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Why scatter them in small numbers to numerous drop boxes? If you are pressed for time and working overtime and it gets dark early why not use the closest box and drop them en masse? That makes more sense doesn’t it? Why drive all over town? Sorry but you are lousy at excuse making. The safeguards are great if they are implemented. But if you send everybody home at 10:30 and tell them to return at six to begin counting again but two people pull out boxes of ballots and resume counting alone then you have lost the safeguards. By the time everybody gets back the ballots are separated from the envelopes so there is no more signature verification.

You will find the answers you are looking for in the basement of a pizzaria in Brooklyn.  But I warn you, the rabbit hole is deep.  

I cant say any more now, there are agents monitoring me.  I will contact you again at 23 hundred.  Do not attempt to contact me.

[alexava 6,973]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Why scatter them in small numbers to numerous drop boxes? If you are pressed for time and working overtime and it gets dark early why not use the closest box and drop them en masse? That makes more sense doesn’t it? Why drive all over town? Sorry but you are lousy at excuse making. The safeguards are great if they are implemented. But if you send everybody home at 10:30 and tell them to return at six to begin counting again but two people pull out boxes of ballots and resume counting alone then you have lost the safeguards. By the time everybody gets back the ballots are separated from the envelopes so there is no more signature verification.

You might as well go spar with a fence post. Lol

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

You will find the answers you are looking for in the basement of a pizzaria in Brooklyn.  But I warn you, the rabbit hole is deep.  

I cant say any more now, there are agents monitoring me.  I will contact you again at 23 hundred.  Do not attempt to contact me.

So no answer or explanation. Got it. I do love pizza.

[AU9377 5,035]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Why scatter them in small numbers to numerous drop boxes? If you are pressed for time and working overtime and it gets dark early why not use the closest box and drop them en masse? That makes more sense doesn’t it? Why drive all over town? Sorry but you are lousy at excuse making. The safeguards are great if they are implemented. But if you send everybody home at 10:30 and tell them to return at six to begin counting again but two people pull out boxes of ballots and resume counting alone then you have lost the safeguards. By the time everybody gets back the ballots are separated from the envelopes so there is no more signature verification.

I can't say with any certainty as to why.  There are a lot of possible answers.  Were they simply going to he closest drop box?  In some states, there were hundreds of drop boxes and in others there were limited numbers.  All drop boxes were monitored by cameras.  If the sending people home that you mention is the Fulton County allegation, it was proven that what was alleged to have happened did not actually happen.  The Republican Secretary of State looked into that and I believe what people thought were ballots were actually outer envelopes that ballots are mailed in.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I can't say with any certainty as to why.  There are a lot of possible answers.  Were they simply going to he closest drop box?  In some states, there were hundreds of drop boxes and in others there were limited numbers.  All drop boxes were monitored by cameras.  If the sending people home that you mention is the Fulton County allegation, it was proven that what was alleged to have happened did not actually happen.  The Republican Secretary of State looked into that and I believe what people thought were ballots were actually outer envelopes that ballots are mailed in.

Maybe you could watch the movie and figure out what they were doing.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

 

[AU9377 5,035]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

He goes off the rails at the end.  Nobody is sending blank ballots to be filled out and sent in.  In most states, you have to request the ballot.  In every state, there is verification of the ballots.  If there was any real evidence of fraud, it would have been introduced at any of the hundreds of challenges that were filed and later dismissed.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

17 hours ago, AU9377 said:

He goes off the rails at the end.  Nobody is sending blank ballots to be filled out and sent in.  In most states, you have to request the ballot.  In every state, there is verification of the ballots.  If there was any real evidence of fraud, it would have been introduced at any of the hundreds of challenges that were filed and later dismissed.

Looks like Georgia didn't handle this too well. And to boot, the Republican's knew the potential was there for these things to occur, raised money to prevent it and did nothing but take the cash! Laughable at best. Like I've stated numerous times, they got outworked. Shady maybe, but in the end Joe Biden is president.

[AU9377 5,035]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Looks like Georgia didn't handle this too well. And to boot, the Republican's knew the potential was there for these things to occur, raised money to prevent it and did nothing but take the cash! Laughable at best. Like I've stated numerous times, they got outworked. Shady maybe, but in the end Joe Biden is president.

Georgia had limited drop boxes.  There were more in high population centers, but many more rural counties opted out of having any at all.  The "voting reform" law that was passed actually makes it easier to vote absentee in many ways.  They did that to attempt to divert attention from the real change that was made in giving the authority to certify an election to an appointed State Board of Elections Chairperson and taking it away from the Sec of State.  If that appointed board chairman ever refuses to certify valid election results, all hell will break loose.

[GoAU 1,600]

There are a lot of things that can be done to make elections more secure, but it’s kind of ridiculous that they can’t get bipartisan support.  Basic security doesn’t have to be a deterrent to participation. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

On 5/20/2022 at 6:31 PM, AU9377 said:

Georgia had limited drop boxes.  There were more in high population centers, but many more rural counties opted out of having any at all.  The "voting reform" law that was passed actually makes it easier to vote absentee in many ways.  They did that to attempt to divert attention from the real change that was made in giving the authority to certify an election to an appointed State Board of Elections Chairperson and taking it away from the Sec of State.  If that appointed board chairman ever refuses to certify valid election results, all hell will break loose.

Correct. They handled it poorly. We move on.

[autigeremt 6,686]

On 5/20/2022 at 10:21 PM, GoAU said:

There are a lot of things that can be done to make elections more secure, but it’s kind of ridiculous that they can’t get bipartisan support.  Basic security doesn’t have to be a deterrent to participation. 

Keeps them in control. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 5/20/2022 at 10:21 PM, GoAU said:

There are a lot of things that can be done to make elections more secure, but it’s kind of ridiculous that they can’t get bipartisan support.  Basic security doesn’t have to be a deterrent to participation. 

If we truly want elections with more integrity, we should be talking about campaign finance reform.  We should be discussing the role of the parties in control over elections.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 5/20/2022 at 11:21 PM, GoAU said:

There are a lot of things that can be done to make elections more secure, but it’s kind of ridiculous that they can’t get bipartisan support.  Basic security doesn’t have to be a deterrent to participation. 

There are lots of things that can be done,  But the first question is should they be done or do they really need to be done?

I have yet to see any evidence of any fraud or malfeasance in recent elections that came remotely close to actually affecting the outcome.

As for the lack of bipartisianshp, you can blame Trump.  Democrats don't trust Republicans regarding setting election rules.  And why should they?  

Trump is responsible for undermining the trust in our election process, starting months before the actual election, and then extending to Jan. 6, when Trump supporters committed sedition trying to thwart the certification process.    And he - along with most Republicans continue to propagate the lie the election was fraudulent. In fact, in most cases, it's the litmus test that Republicans have to pass to have a chance for their party's nomination.

Trying to work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to improve election security would be like trying to work with a recently failed bank robber to improve bank security.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

If we truly want elections with more integrity, we should be talking about campaign finance reform.  We should be discussing the role of the parties in control over elections.

Republicans have zero interest in changing the role money plays in our politics. 

Just the opposite.

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

If we truly want elections with more integrity, we should be talking about campaign finance reform.  We should be discussing the role of the parties in control over elections.

I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to these items either.  Both sides are owned by massive contributors.  
 

And one of my key asks is absolutely pushing for voter ID  requirements.  

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

There are lots of things that can be done,  But the first question is should they be done or do they really need to be done?

I have yet to see any evidence of any fraud or malfeasance in recent elections that came remotely close to actually affecting the outcome.

As for the lack of bipartisianshp, you can blame Trump.  Democrats don't trust Republicans regarding setting election rules.  And why should they?  

Trump is responsible for undermining the trust in our election process, starting months before the actual election, and then extending to Jan. 6, when Trump supporters committed sedition trying to thwart the certification process.    And he - along with most Republicans continue to propagate the lie the election was fraudulent. In fact, in most cases, it's the litmus test that Republicans have to pass to have a chance for their party's nomination.

Trying to work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to improve election security would be like trying to work with a recently failed bank robber to improve bank security.

 

Yes - they absolutely SHOULD be done.   Whether or not you feel there was fraud in the last election, would your stance be to wait until there is fraud to fix it?   You know the old saying- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  
 

I can certainly understand your claim to blame Trump for recent erosion of confidence in the voting process, but let’s not forget the Democrats complaints in 2016 or 2000.  Admittedly they were not as blunt or vocal but they were certainly there.  Calling for an end to the Electoral College isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.  
 

Regarding fraud in the last election - I agree that compelling evidence has not been presented.  That being said there have been several claims that Trump has made that were deemed outlandish or false but have been proven true over time, so while I don’t believe in a stolen election currently, I also can’t say I would be stunned should it come out.   Along with so many states altering the voting processes allegedly due to COVID raises some suspicions as well. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to these items either.  Both sides are owned by massive contributors.  
 

And one of my key asks is absolutely pushing for voter ID  requirements.  

Agreed.  Just don't attempt to severely limit the types of photo ID required.  Individual voter fraud is just not much of a problem.

We must get money out of the political process.  A government that is for sale is not a democracy and, it's economy is not capitalistic.

[autigeremt 6,686]

Bring back the republic…..👍