IMO, the Fix is in

[Monahorns]

Seriously, the rules that drive the algorithms can be easily outlined in legislation. After all, a programmer needs to be able to code the rules. You then can have a regular audit of the program by a 3rd party to ensure everything is kosher. It's only needed every 10 years, right? Like the Census, State Legislatures can debate if the rules that drive the algorithm need to be updated and change the laws appropriately.

It's not hard. Many states already have "Non-Politician Commissions" that divide up the maps, likely guided by a pre-set list of rules.

These are state by state processes but what we've seen over he last 20-30 years is a corrosive influence from the political parties on the legislative redistricting process to guarantee the current party in power remains in power.

Basically you are saying the politicians would set it up, so the same problems would inevitably occur.

 

[Monahorns]

2) What effort to "limit" ID's? There is no excuse to begin with for NOT having an ID even if one did not need a DL. There are DPS locations in every county to the best of my knowledge...and many jurisdictions even have at least one day a month where they were doing extended hours.

But mb227, everyone knows "they" aren't smart or capable enough to get an ID. "We" have to save them from themselves.

 

[CTex]

Actually, the opposite is true. A real "he said, she said" dispute is what courts seldom dismiss. They impanel juries to decide "he said, she said" disputes. When a court summarily tosses out an affidavit as not credible, there is usually some kind of major defect to it. It's not as simple as, "He's probably not telling the truth." For example, there is some uncontested fact that makes the testimony impossible to be true. Or perhaps it testifies to speculation of an alleged fact rather than personal knowledge of that fact.



OK, you buy into the Kraken. I get it, and I'm not judging. After all, some of us believe Magic Johnson is faking his HIV/AIDS diagnosis. Here's the problem. Allegations are not evidence. Somebody testifying under oath saying, "On November 3, 2020, I saw Bob manipulate votes and delete transaction logs" would be evidence. And has a properly judiciable lawsuit been brought that would enable the examination of the machines? To my knowledge there hasn't been. In fact, she has been dropping more lawsuits of late than filing.



It's not always cut and dry, but that doesn't mean that it never is. The Texas case was brought under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. That is an entirely unique procedure from what the Trump lawsuits were brought under, and there's almost no precedent on it. By the way, I agree with Justices Thomas and Alito. SCOTUS should have to hear cases brought under its original jurisdiction. That doesn't mean Texas would have had standing to truly reach the merits - only that the Court should have heard the case and then wiped its *** with them, which is what Thomas suggested he would have done.

What happened in the other cases was far more cut and dry. That's why pretty much every judge regardless of judicial philosophy reached the same conclusion.



No. If had evidence of serious wrongdoing, I would find a proper plaintiff and bring suit in a proper court. If I guessed wrong once, I'd correct my error and file in the correct court. I wouldn't just keep suing without standing.



If they're trying to overturn the election results, then there is nothing they should have seen that the rest of us have not. That evidence should be in court in front of judges and perhaps jurors.



Why would he do that? Two reasons. First, the odds of him actually having to pay money in a defamation action are virtually nil. Second, there's money and fame to be gained by doing what he did. Same for Powell, Giuliani, and ultimately, Trump. What if those people write books, make documentaries, or get talk shows or podcasts? Guys like you and others will buy. What if Trump runs for office again or launches his own news network? Guys like you will vote for him in the primary and watch his news channel. Furthermore, when he says, "Joe Blow Republican wasn't loyal to me when I was contesting the election and should lose his primary election," guys like you will vote to oust Joe Blow Republican. This whole story cost us control of the Senate and is putting freaks in the Cabinet and on the federal courts, but it created opportunities for all of these people to make money, fame, and power.



He's not acting like this is the case. Take it from someone who has experience and knows what it actually looks like.

I’ll try to dig in to all your points when I have more time. I will offer you this. You obviously cant help but look at things through the lens of an experienced attorney. Don’t blame you. Sometimes it is helpful to take off your attorney hat and look at things through the eyes of the Jury. You may say the Jury (voters) spoke and they chose Biden. My original post was about gut feeling and my gut says there is no way Biden got monumentally more votes than Obama ever did and my gut (and 20 years in Electronic Discovery) tells me if anyone really wanted to know the truth, then the electronic evidence would not have been stonewalled at every turn in the courts and ignored by the FBI. It's the same insulted feeling I got when the FBI refused to examine the DNC server in 2016. The FBI does not allow 3rd parties to do their forensic examinations for them. If they care about the truth. Please don’t tie me to the “Kraken”. This was never even defined by powell or anyone else that I know of.

 

[OUBubba]

I’ll try to dig in to all your points when I have more time. I will offer you this. You obviously cant help but look at things through the lens of an experienced attorney. Don’t blame you. Sometimes it is helpful to take off your attorney hat and look at things through the eyes of the Jury. You may say the Jury (voters) spoke and they chose Biden. My original post was about gut feeling and my gut says there is no way Biden got monumentally more votes than Obama ever did and my gut (and 20 years in Electronic Discovery) tells me if anyone really wanted to know the truth, then the electronic evidence would not have been stonewalled at every turn in the courts and ignored by the FBI. It's the same insulted feeling I got when the FBI refused to examine the DNC server in 2016. The FBI does not allow 3rd parties to do their forensic examinations for them. If they care about the truth. Please don’t tie me to the “Kraken”. This was never even defined by powell or anyone else that I know of.

She released said “kraken”. It was more like chuckie. Nothing but junk. This summarizes it best.

Or this:

 

[Mr. Deez]

I’ll try to dig in to all your points when I have more time. I will offer you this. You obviously cant help but look at things through the lens of an experienced attorney. Don’t blame you. Sometimes it is helpful to take off your attorney hat and look at things through the eyes of the Jury.

The reason I don't take the attorney hat off for this sort of thing is that election challenges are inherently legal matters. A challenge either has merit or it doesn't, and the courthouse is where that is generally sorted out. What's offered in court is real, because it can be vetted, meet basic rules of evidence and therefore reliability, and can be cross-examined by an adversary. What's not offered in court is posturing, and if it's not being offered in court, there's a reason for it.

My original post was about gut feeling and my gut says there is no way Biden got monumentally more votes than Obama ever did and my gut (and 20 years in Electronic Discovery) tells me if anyone really wanted to know the truth, then the electronic evidence would not have been stonewalled at every turn in the courts and ignored by the FBI. It's the same insulted feeling I got when the FBI refused to examine the DNC server in 2016. The FBI does not allow 3rd parties to do their forensic examinations for them. If they care about the truth.

A few points on this. First, we don't allow pure fishing expeditions. If you want to compel the production of evidence, there has to be a valid legal proceeding to which it would be relevant. I'm not aware of any such proceeding, civil or criminal.

Second, I understand the gut feelings. I get them too, but we can't overturn elections and bend the Constitution on them alone. I understand why some doubt that Biden got more votes than Obama did, but so did Trump. It was a very high turnout election. We had mail-in balloting and a massively polarizing incumbent president on the ticket.

Please don’t tie me to the “Kraken”. This was never even defined by powell or anyone else that I know of.

I only did it, because you're sorta making her points and arguments.

 

[PecosBill]

Biden 80M+
Trump 73M+
Registered but chose not to vote 80M+
Plenty of room for larger voter results.

Increased voter turnout can been counted in county voting results including the down ballot races which exceeded some POTUS results.

People turn 18 every day for 4 years and a smaller number die. Probably 12M-15M net new voters every 4 years.

Trump was an unpopular incumbent.

 

[CTex]

I only did it, because you're sorta making her points and arguments.

I certainly see that it appears that I am simply parroting her. But I was calling for significant discovery on voting systems within 24 hours of the “Midnight shutdown” that we had never seen before and was apparently only needed in swing states. This was before she coined that hokey phrase. I do support her efforts but would have preferred her to say we are going to “Release the electronic evidence”
I definitely understand not allowing Fishing exercises, But dont you think the admission that at least a couple “glitches” occurred makes this less of a fishing exercise?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I certainly see that it appears that I am simply parroting her. But I was calling for significant discovery on voting systems within 24 hours of the “Midnight shutdown” that we had never seen before and was apparently only needed in swing states. This was before she coined that hokey phrase. I do support her efforts but would have preferred her to say we are going to “Release the electronic evidence”
I definitely understand not allowing Fishing exercises, But dont you think the admission that at least a couple “glitches” occurred makes this less of a fishing exercise?

Anyone remember Antium(sp?) County in Michigan? This was that infamous county where 5k vote were registered incorrectly for Biden then switched back to Trump. They used Dominion. The County (and State) claimed it was human error but a court allowed the Kraken crowd direct access to analyze the voting machines. The Kraken team presented a big report that claimed a massive error rate (65%) and all sorts of improprieties. Of course, it was written by the same guy that submitted affidavits confusing MI with MN and had charts showing the exact same townships with vastly different voting rates this election based on his analysis. Guiliani pointed to that analysis as the "smoking gun". Anyone know how that concluded?

 

[OUBubba]

Anyone remember Antium(sp?) County in Michigan? This was that infamous county where 5k vote were registered incorrectly for Biden then switched back to Trump. They used Dominion. The County (and State) claimed it was human error but a court allowed the Kraken crowd direct access to analyze the voting machines. The Kraken team presented a big report that claimed a massive error rate (65%) and all sorts of improprieties. Of course, it was written by the same guy that submitted affidavits confusing MI with MN and had charts showing the exact same townships with vastly different voting rates this election based on his analysis. Guiliani pointed to that analysis as the "smoking gun". Anyone know how that concluded?

Crickets GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

[Seattle Husker]

I didn't realize that many of the conservative sites that pushed the "stolen election" conspiracy have been offering retractions under threat of lawsuit from Dominion. Here is American Thinker which started the Dominion Voting System snowball.

We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their request that we publish the following statement:

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm in on this if you allow elderly above the driving age to use an expired document and if you mandate that the ability to get an ID is a universal thing that all states and counties must follow well established guidelines assuring reasonable access and some extended hours.

All states? Can't really require that, but all counties, yes. I don't have a problem with expired IDs within reason. I'm not going to accept grandma's 1956 driver's license when she looked like Elizabeth Taylor, but I wouldn't throw her out of the polling place if it has been expired for a few years either. I'd say that if it has been current within the last ten years, I'd let it slide. And I have no problem with the IDs given out without a fee.

 

[mchammer]

Texas allows expired driver licenses for voter ID if within 3 or so years.

 

[Horn6721]

Texas also offers FREE id. Not a driver's license but an official id

 

[CTex]

Trump was an unpopular incumbent

No, he was not.

 

[OUBubba]

No, he was not.

Faux news disagrees. LIVE UPDATES: Trump approval rating hits record low following Capitol riots, impeachment | Fox News

also: Melania Trump leaves with the worst final popularity rating ever for a first lady - CNNPolitics

 

[Mr. Deez]

I definitely understand not allowing Fishing exercises, But dont you think the admission that at least a couple “glitches” occurred makes this less of a fishing exercise?

It depends on the scope of the lawsuit and the glitch as well as what's being asked for. Does a glitch in Antrim County, Michigan justify a major investigation of voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan? Maybe so, and I think that case might actually still be pending. Does it justify something similar in Pennsylvania and Georgia? No.

 

[iatrogenic]

Faux news disagrees. LIVE UPDATES: Trump approval rating hits record low following Capitol riots, impeachment | Fox News

also: Melania Trump leaves with the worst final popularity rating ever for a first lady - CNNPolitics

75million people disagree with them about Trump.

I personally have the First Lady rated number 1 by a large margin (probably an unsurmountable lead), just saying. You are welcome to all the Michelle Obama you want.

 

[Mr. Deez]

75million people disagree with them about Trump.

I personally have the First Lady rated number 1 by a large margin (probably an unsurmountable lead), just saying. You are welcome to all the Michelle Obama you want.

Most first ladies (even Republicans) are humanized by the media in ways, and so long as they aren't blatantly political or do something really stupid, they usually don't get negative press. Melania never got those courtesies.

 

[iatrogenic]

Most first ladies (even Republicans) are humanized by the media in ways, and so long as they aren't blatantly political or do something really stupid, they usually don't get negative press. Melania never got those courtesies.

I am guessing the CNN pollster asked the following question:

"If Melania Trump dropped your babies on their heads and blew up a nuclear bomb at your grandma's house, would you find her favorable or unfavorable?"

 

[OUBubba]

Most first ladies (even Republicans) are humanized by the media in ways, and so long as they aren't blatantly political or do something really stupid, they usually don't get negative press. Melania never got those courtesies.

She did not help herself AT ALL. Anti bullying? I don’t care do you? Cruella’s Christmas? It was like she was trying to be that way.

 

[Mr. Deez]

She did not help herself AT ALL. Anti bullying? I don’t care do you? Cruella’s Christmas? It was like she was trying to be that way.

You're relying on spin. She was relatively ordinary as a first lady - other than being hot.

 

[mchammer]

Or, "do you view the former nude model who's married to the racist monster president


You're relying on spin. She was relatively ordinary as a first lady - other than being hot.

Extremely hot. You are doing her a disservice yourself.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Extremely hot. You are doing her a disservice yourself.

I actually had meant to use that in a response to iatrogenic and forgot to either delete it or finish my point and then typed my response to Barry mindlessly.

I've generally defended Melania - the nude pictures from the '90s, the ugly and partisan spin (that even most Democratic politicians left alone), and the smears on her accent. Like I've said before, the nude pictures are due to a cultural difference between Europe and the United States. Nudity just isn't viewed the same way here.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm sure there isn't a single state that didn't have some example of voter fraud, caught or not. Is it egregious enough to make it harder to vote eliminating 10's of thousands of voters? Absolutely not.

But you can't possibly know that, and that's the problem with it. The only check on it is the signature, and frankly that isn't a very reliable measure (both in favor and against verification). My signature doesn't always look the same. Young voters, very old voters, and voters whose first language reads backwards (at least for us) frequently don't have consistent signatures. And of course, if someone turns in a fraudulent ballot, there's virtually no way to track it to the wrongdoer.

Do I think that means there's enormous fraud? No, but it's probably not irrelevant either. Furthermore, you don't eliminate tens of thousands of voters by having in-person ballots (as the nation generally has had since the beginning with only a few exceptions). Those people still have a right to vote, and I don't mind increasing polling places or whatever it takes to enable them within reason. I don't mind making Election Day a national holiday and giving employment protections for people to be able to vote.

In full transparency, I didn't always vote in every election when I was younger and WA State like others had only in-person voting. Living in the City of Seattle and working 60+hrs a week, the flexibility and desire to stand in line for an hour or more to vote on a City Councilman wasn't present. With mail-in voting, I've never missed a single election.

Two things. First, we should have a uniform election date, and I mean a real one. Texas has two "uniform election dates," and that's BS. They don't know what "uni" means. Second, yes I know it can be a hassle to vote, but I don't think we're asking too much to expect people to go to that trouble once every two or four years if they care to have a say, especially if we make it a national holiday and give employment protections to people.

Additionally, the aspect I appreciate most about mail-in voting is never mentioned. I literally spend hours researching each Referendum and candidate online as I complete my ballot. Gone are the days where you are simply looking at a ****** voting pamphlet and statement trying to make a choice. Now I have he internet at my disposal to check out the candidates. Partisan sites, LinkedIn and yes even Facebook can offer insight into these lower level candidates.

I don't think this is as big of a factor as you assume. You can still look at those resources and vote in person. I did the same research when voting in person. I just made a list of the candidates I wanted to vote for.

Does every mail-in voter spend that much time? Not likely but I'd argue they are likely MORE informed than the typical voter sitting in a voting booth with only a pamphlet to guide them.

Respectfully, I just don't think that's true. I'm sure plenty of mail-in voters are informed, but do I think they're more informed in general and in-person voters? No. It just doesn't make a lot of sense that the group more motivated to show up would be less informed.

Mr. Deez, would you say that all extremists are "informed and motivated" simply because they vote? I'm on record as being against extremism. When we limit our voting to only the most motivated and often the most biased (read: least truth based) then we get the deeply politicized politics we see. We need MORE independents, MORE people that don't live and breath politics to vote because those are the people that are simply living their lives. They have the freshest eyes, unpolluted by partisan rhetoric. After witnessing the lies purveyed daily by last administration and it's supporter, why would you want to limit your elections to that element and their counterparts on the extreme left?

I think you assume that there's a parallel between extremism and voting. I'm not sure that's true. Look at the most extreme elements of the Trump base - the QAnon and alt-Right weirdos and their sympathizers. Look at the most extreme elements of the Democratic base - Antifa and BLM rioters and their sympathizers. Ten years ago, those people weren't your average loyal Republicans and Democrats. They were largely political non-participants.

I think the biggest reason you don't see a lot of moderate politicians elected anymore is that you don't see a lot of moderate people anymore. You might assume that the moderates are there but just not showing up. However, we elected far more moderates in the 1980s and 1990s than we do today, and voter turnout was actually lower back then. That was back when the GOP had a ton of moderates (like your old senator, Slade Gorton and Chris Shays) and even liberals (Lowell Weicker, Jim Jeffords). The Democrats had moderates (Bob Kerrey and Paul Tsongas) and pretty staunch conservatives (Billy Tauzin and Jim Exon).

How did guys like that win when turnout was lower and should have been driven by more extreme elements of their parties? It's because the electorate was more moderate and less polarized. We all think we know everything now, so nuance and moderation aren't valued anywhere near as much.

As an aside, I do agree with you Deez on straight ticket voting. That's an uniformed as any voter that votes once every 4 years.

Agree. I would even kick around the idea of not identifying party on the ballot at all. Parties nominate, but you vote for a person, not a party.

Can I throw in a bit to outlaw gerrymandering? For shits and giggles I looked at Jerry Nadler's and Jim Jordan's congressional districts. Just 2 examples of many that continue to drive the partisan rancor and extremism on both sides.

You can find much worse. John Sarbanes's district in Maryland is probably the worst in the country, and of course Texas and Pennsylvania have several bad ones (though probably none quite as bad as Sarbanes's). I detest gerrymandering and always have (long before it became a big political story), but I've never seen a way to really get rid of it that people would actually go along with. Nobody believes a nonpartisan commission would really be nonpartisan. Honestly, you'd probably get the fairest districts if a panel of federal judges drew them. They have the least interest.

 

[CTex]

Faux news disagrees.

Hey Bubba, I quit listening to polls and approval ratings a while back. I think i have shown my hand already that I have serious questions about the vote totals in this election being inaccurate in favor of Biden. But even so, Trump is officially credited with over 74 Million votes. That is not an unpopular incumbent.

 

[OUBubba]

Hey Bubba, I quit listening to polls and approval ratings a while back. I think i have shown my hand already that I have serious questions about the vote totals in this election being inaccurate in favor of Biden. But even so, Trump is officially credited with over 74 Million votes. That is not an unpopular incumbent.

74,000,000 people would vote for a kumquat.

 

[CTex]

74,000,000 people would vote for a kumquat.

Kumquat? Oh boy, now that I am getting involved here on Hornfans, I can tell that I am going to enjoy football season with our north of the red river compadre.
No offense of course.
I’ll understand if Di moves this to On the field

 

[HornHuskerDad]

you vote for a person, not a party.

Mr. Deez, I'm inclined to disagree on this point. And I've had this discussion with one of my best friends, who happens to be pretty liberal.
I find it impossible to vote for a Democrat. The reason is simple - if he is identifying with the Democratic party, then he is linking himself to the Democratic platform, and in Congress, would likely vote the Democratic party line on the significant issues. I read the Democratic platform online (in great detail) and I just can't agree to vote for a candidate who stands on that platform.
I hope the GOP nominates candidates of high character and ability. But I'd rather vote for a so-so GOP candidate than any Democrat.

 

[iatrogenic]

74,000,000 people would vote for a kumquat.

I agree.

 

[Horn6721]

So far not one Dem on here has defended SloJoe. Why not?