The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[jberryhill]

Automatically purging voters who have not voted in several years and do not respond to a mailed notice isn't unreasonable.

First off, cross-referencing dead people is hard, for the reasons I already explained to you.

Secondly, automatic purging ALREADY HAPPENS. Look at what you said:

"voters who have not voted in several years"


Elections tend to be run every other year, and most people only vote every four years. So it is easier to talk about "cycles" not years, unless for some reason you are voting every year in your state.

So that is the first thing you need to understand about elections - they don't happen every year. At best, you get to find out whether someone is an active voter every two years.

So if we make it "two election cycles of non-voting before removal" that means that dead people are going to stay registered to vote for two years, and then be removed before the sixth year after their death.

That's a lot of dead people you want to keep registered, Mr.-X.

How about two years? Is that okay with you?

Well, there's no way to measure "every two years" since elections typically only are scheduled for every two years. (sure there are runoffs, special elections, and other stuff, but scheduled elections tend to be every two years)

If you make it TWO YEARS then what you are saying, on a practical level, is that everybody needs to re-register every time they vote in a US Congressional election.

If you make it longer than that, then you are going to have to deal with the fact that there are more than two years worth of dead people who are on your voter registration list.

So, tell me, in your state, how do they do it?

Or, pick the reddest state you can find, say, Utah. How do they keep the dead people from being registered to vote there?

 

[mr-x]

 

[jberryhill]

The Supreme Court is allowing Ohio to clean up its voting rolls by targeting people who haven't cast ballots in a while.

Yes, I addressed that. Many states do that. The trick is how long do you mean by "a while". Even if you make it as short as two years, you have two years' worth of dead people on your registration rolls at any given time.

 

[Cannuck]

The point is that people register things when they are alive. They don't "unregister" from those things when they die. They don't do that, because they are dead....
Since you know so much about how this worked, why don't you explain it. About how many people's cooperation do you need in order to fake thousands of dead people or wrongly-addressed people voting - to harvest, fill out, sign and return them all?

Could a fair percentage of deaths during the Covid pandemic be partly responsible for registered voters that are no longer alive? Personally at this point going forward, I would be more concerned about keeping my family safe than who won/defrauded the election.

 

[mr-x]

First off, cross-referencing dead people is hard, for the reasons I already explained to you.

Secondly, automatic purging ALREADY HAPPENS. Look at what you said:

"voters who have not voted in several years"

You got me John. No need to clean voter registration databases. Supreme Court got it all wrong.

Elections tend to be run every other year, and most people only vote every four years. So it is easier to talk about "cycles" not years, unless for some reason you are voting every year in your state.

So that is the first thing you need to understand about elections - they don't happen every year. At best, you get to find out whether someone is an active voter every two years.

So if we make it "two election cycles of non-voting before removal" that means that dead people are going to stay registered to vote for two years, and then be removed before the sixth year after their death.

That's a lot of dead people you want to keep registered, Mr.-X.

How about two years? Is that okay with you?

Well, there's no way to measure "every two years" since elections typically only are scheduled for every two years. (sure there are runoffs, special elections, and other stuff, but scheduled elections tend to be every two years)

If you make it TWO YEARS then what you are saying, on a practical level, is that everybody needs to re-register every time they vote in a US Congressional election.

If you make it longer than that, then you are going to have to deal with the fact that there are more than two years worth of dead people who are on your voter registration list.

So, tell me, in your state, how do they do it?

Or, pick the reddest state you can find, say, Utah. How do they keep the dead people from being registered to vote there?

 

[jberryhill]

You got me John. No need to clean voter registration databases. Supreme Court got it all wrong.

Don't be silly. I already said that many states do it on the basis of voter inactivity. That takes care of people who are alive and have moved somewhere else, and it ALSO takes care of dead people.

That Supreme Court decision was specific to a particular method which was being used. Because you obviously are unaware that many states use inactivity for a certain number of cycles to remove voter registrations.

But your point, earlier in this thread, was "OMG THERE'S DEAD PEOPLE REGISTERED TO VOTE"

Well, yes, of course there are. And there will continue to be dead people registered to vote under any scheme of "inactive for X amount of time" you want to use, because you will always have the accumulated dead people for "X amount of time."

I have no problem with removing registrations after a certain number of cycles of inactivity.

But, what you don't seem to grasp, is that method doesn't actually do anything if someone is VOTING those registrations. Because if that is happening, then the registrations won't be removed, duh.

Your claim is that thousands - even tens of thousands - of votes were cast in Pennsylvania on behalf of dead people.

Well, could you explain, since I'm obviously really, really dumb, how removing "inactive voter registrations" would solve the problem of "dead people voting"? If they are voting, they won't get removed!

 

[mr-x]

Yes, I addressed that. Many states do that. The trick is how long do you mean by "a while". Even if you make it as short as two years, you have two years' worth of dead people on your registration rolls at any given time.

You're going to argue voter fraud is so rare it doesn't happen. I'm not convinced. I think people will find a way to game the system and democrats do everything they can to help. In example, California ballot harvesting laws.

I agree "dead" voters are few and far between and may not be a problem but that is not a reason to maintain voter registration databases. In an election decided by 500 votes, it does make a difference.

I can't explain how republicans can register more new voters, have more enthusiasm, increase minority % and then loose.

I can't explain why our elections are non-transparent, slow and error prone. I have no proof, only evidence and accusations.

 

[mr-x]

Is voter fraud a vast conspiracy? I don't think so. Is it organized? Maybe.

I believe fraud was wide spread, independently perpetrated. If so, there are witnesses and sooner or later they will talk.

 

[JB Lions]

Is voter fraud a vast conspiracy? I don't think so. Is it organized? Maybe.

I believe fraud was wide spread, independently perpetrated. If so, there are witnesses and sooner or later they will talk.

It's rare in National Elections, we've went over that many times. If you believe it is widespread, I'm sure it would have happened the last election as well. Can you link it up. I'm sure 4 years is enough time to find it and handle it. There has to be stories out there about it.

 

[Domainace]

I think at this point the people who don't support Trump would have elected a dung beetle rather than deal with another four years

I would rather a dung beetle that the continuation of this massive and corrupt war machine. The people that hate Trump hated him for the most superficial reasons - his tweets, his personality, his in-your-face narcissism... If you look at the actual record, there was little that changed in the US. He did some very good things, as well. But the hate came from the same values that people watch for on reality shows. The big pictures are all being ignored. (With a few exceptions. I can accept Cannuck's focus on the environment. He believes that the Paris Accord, etc. are important. At least that's a real issue.) Other than that, we have people angry about a tweet, pretending that the Dems would have handled Covid any better, the wet-dream fantasy that he is Putin's puppet (despite being far, far harder on him than Obama.) He didn't get the US into new wars - though I am sure Biden will rectify that.

And countless articles from "enlightened" white authors confused or trying to explain why Trump got more support from minorities that any Republican in 60 years. ("But, but he's a racist.") Many of these enlightened white folks, of course, take the most patronizing road to explaining this that they can. With their superior white minds and all...

The sad fact is, there is virtually no 5th estate left to challenge politicians on the left. They are free to murder and cheat at will. This is a very dangerous situation. Somebody needs to keep government accountable, or the chickens will come home to roost.

And this is why people turn to Twitter or other sources. If your only source of news is the major news media, you are being lied to. So people go where they can to get info - much of it unverified or false. This is the result of propagandists pretending to be journalists.

But, hey... I am sure there is something on Netflix...

 

[jberryhill]

I agree "dead" voters are few and far between and may not be a problem

Okay fine.

but that is not a reason to maintain voter registration databases. In an election decided by 500 votes, it does make a difference.

I didn't say there was no reason to maintain voter registration databases. What I have figured out here, is that you do not seem to have put much thought into the problem, nor have you demonstrated a curiosity to learn, for example, how it happens in your state. That's a shame. If you knew how the system worked in your state, and if you are unhappy with it, you could perhaps organize around a specific problem you'd like to solve, rather than just throwing around "evidence and accusations".

For sure, there were a whole lot of "evidence and accusations" being thrown around in 2000 and 2004 by Democrats, and you will recall that it was quite some time before Ohio was decided in 2004.

Furthermore, it only makes a difference "In an election decided by 500 votes" if, in fact, as many as 500 dead people voted.

But "dead people registered to vote" is normal, even in the best of red-state voter databases, because no matter what your system is, there is always going to be lag time (or cycle time if you are using inactivity). The problem is simply assuming that "dead people registered to vote" means "dead people voting".

I mean, good golly, it is a statistical certainty that people mailed their ballots on October 15, and dropped dead on October 30. If the election is held on November 3, are those, in your book, "dead person votes" or not?

 

[mr-x]

Don't be silly. I already said that many states do it on the basis of voter inactivity. That takes care of people who are alive and have moved somewhere else, and it ALSO takes care of dead people.

That Supreme Court decision was specific to a particular method which was being used. Because you obviously are unaware that many states use inactivity for a certain number of cycles to remove voter registrations.

But your point, earlier in this thread, was "OMG THERE'S DEAD PEOPLE REGISTERED TO VOTE"

Well, yes, of course there are. And there will continue to be dead people registered to vote under any scheme of "inactive for X amount of time" you want to use, because you will always have the accumulated dead people for "X amount of time."

I have no problem with removing registrations after a certain number of cycles of inactivity.

But, what you don't seem to grasp, is that method doesn't actually do anything if someone is VOTING those registrations. Because if that is happening, then the registrations won't be removed, duh.

Your claim is that thousands - even tens of thousands - of votes were cast in Pennsylvania on behalf of dead people.

Well, could you explain, since I'm obviously really, really dumb, how removing "inactive voter registrations" would solve the problem of "dead people voting"? If they are voting, they won't get removed!

You're correct, and it is probably a small number. Most dead people can be removed from list automatically. If they are not and a ballot is mailed, it can be used. Voter that move out of state and their ballots are used would not be detected.

 

[Joe N]

And I’m telling you that the law of averages disagrees. It’s a scam.

I'm not even sure where to go from here. We're presenting hard data and sound reasoning.

Are you aware that the law of averages depends heavily on probability and time?

 

[Domainace]

Why would Twitter ban that bitch? She's a Trump hating Liberal after all. Here's her re-tweet from yesterday:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1324400472866709504

And her re-tweet from today:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1324483821648056320

Time to clip Twitter's wings... should have been done a few years ago!

I more or less ignored this. He said "heads on pikes," and they interpret that as wanting a beheading? Are the Twitter censors really that unfamiliar with common metaphorical expressions?

 

[Joe N]

You have a problem with Trump supporters?

Hey, just go back and start reading the almost 2000 pages on this thread to find millions of facts, instead of parachuting in today and talking about facts. Show us your facts and join the battle!

I did!!

 

[Abdillahi Abdillahi]

 

[Joe N]

You really are a bloody lazy person. Go back on this thread and you'll find tons of stuff.

You don't read sarcasm very well.

 

[JB Lions]

I more or less ignored this. He said "heads on pikes," and they interpret that as wanting a beheading? Are the Twitter censors really that unfamiliar with common metaphorical expressions?

You left out what came before and after that:

"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put their heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the programme or you're gone."

Are you thinking putting the heads on pikes with the body attached?

 

[Keith]

I'm not even sure where to go from here. We're presenting hard data and sound reasoning.

Are you aware that the law of averages depends heavily on probability and time?

The law of averages is just that. Factors don’t sway it. You want to believe that a guy said vote mail in and another said don’t. And the sheep followed. Life in today’s world doesn’t work that way.

It’s actually sad that your argument relies on people following a command from a government official. In other words, you admit that dems can’t think on their own.

 

[Samer]

Arizona lead down to 39k

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...pdates-2020-presidential-election/6176092002/