The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that fuck's number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Do those people have any proof that those specific measures are the only way to ensure safe elections, and that other voting methods in any way made it unsafe? They can believe it earnestly all they want, it doesn't matter if they have no evidence and are straight-up incorrect. Someone can earnestly believe the earth is flat, that doesn't mean the correct answer is somewhere halfway between flat and round.

The only proof is that the minuscule fraud that exists is done by Rs.

if hovey can’t read minds it means the chemtrails have gotten to him

 

[Kepler]

I tend to be less accusatory than others on this site. So here is what I'll say.

Are there individuals in Texas who are behind or support this legislation because they believe it is politically expedient to do so, either because it might be politically popular with their constituents or because they think some people may not make the effort to vote if more requirements are in place, and those people probably won't vote for that politician? I'm sure there are. I would certainly bet on it.

Are there also individuals in Texas who legitimately believe these measures are important, who think that you should basically only be allowed to vote on election day, at an election precinct, during a certain window in time, and that you should have to prove who you are before you can vote, and that such requirements are fundamental to running clean and fair elections? I'm sure those people exist as well, and would be willing to bet on that, too.

Unlike a number of my fellow posters, I am incapable of reading minds, so I'll decline to name names with respect to who might fall into either category.

I don't think this is evasion, I think it's willful blindness. I said a long time ago the only people with a chance to be heroes in our time were conservatives. It's easy for me, who hates the Right agenda, to oppose them. The only people with the opportunity to demonstrate character in this situation are people who really want their side to win elections but who refuse to win by destroying democracy. Those people are the only ones who will put the country ahead of themselves, and they're the only ones who will be patriots during this turn of the wheel. And probably because that is so hard, there are virtually none of them.

Maybe someday there will be a Left that endangers our country and I will have the chance to stand up to them; then I will know what I'm made of. But I would encourage you to think: you are being tested. This is when you discover what you are made of.

The Nazis were never more than a tiny minority. They gained and coalesced power because vast numbers of people went along with them for ideological convenience, or because they just couldn't be bothered to stand up to them. It was more comfortable for them to lawyer the point than to face what the Nazis were.

That's what the GOP is now. They're not even hiding it.

 

[rufus]

Do those people have any proof that those specific measures are the only way to ensure safe elections, and that other voting methods in any way made it unsafe? They can believe it earnestly all they want, it doesn't matter if they have no evidence and are straight-up incorrect. Someone can earnestly believe the earth is flat, that doesn't mean the correct answer is somewhere halfway between flat and round.

Bipartisanship. Compromise.

 

[rufus]

I don't think this is evasion, I think it's willful blindness. I said a long time ago the only people with a chance to be heroes in our time were conservatives. It's easy for me, who hates the Right agenda, to oppose them. The only people with the opportunity to demonstrate character in this situation are people who really want their side to win elections but who refuse to win by destroying democracy. Those people are the only ones who will put the country ahead of themselves, and they're the only ones who will be patriots during this turn of the wheel. And probably because that is so hard, there are virtually none of them.

Maybe someday there will be a Left that endangers our country and I will have the chance to stand up to them; then I will know what I'm made of. But I would encourage you to think: you are being tested. This is when you discover what you are made of.

The Nazis were never more than a tiny minority. They gained and coalesced power because vast numbers of people went along with them for ideological convenience, or because they just couldn't be bothered to stand up to them. It was more comfortable for them to lawyer the point than to face what the Nazis were.

That's what the GOP is now. They're not even hiding it.

The Good Germans.

Stand up and take a bow, Hovey.

 

[LynahFan]

I tend to be less accusatory than others on this site. So here is what I'll say.

Are there individuals in Texas who are behind or support this legislation because they believe it is politically expedient to do so, either because it might be politically popular with their constituents or because they think some people may not make the effort to vote if more requirements are in place, and those people probably won't vote for that politician? I'm sure there are. I would certainly bet on it.

Are there also individuals in Texas who legitimately believe these measures are important, who think that you should basically only be allowed to vote on election day, at an election precinct, during a certain window in time, and that you should have to prove who you are before you can vote, and that such requirements are fundamental to running clean and fair elections? I'm sure those people exist as well, and would be willing to bet on that, too.

Unlike a number of my fellow posters, I am incapable of reading minds, so I'll decline to name names with respect to who might fall into either category.

Sheesh. I know a good chiropractor who can help you get out of that pretzel.

We’re not asking you to read the minds of every “individual” who supports these changes. Let’s start small. Do you believe that the 83 GOP members of the Texas legislature are pure of motive and truly believe that these changes are needed to prevent the counting of thousands upon thousands of ballots that *should not* count? Or do you think that their intent is to make voting just a little less convenient, so that there will be thousands of people who don’t vote whose votes *should have* counted?

It’s not that hard. You’d easily be able to admit that the GOP is trying to pull a fast one, if only you weren’t starting from the position that whatever keeps true patriots (ie people who agree with you) in power must be a good thing and then let the logic twist from there.

 

[burd]

Is there any credible evidence (such as successful court cases) that fraudulent voting in Texas has ever been consequential in a state-wide or national election?

In any state?

 

[Handyman]

I could buy in GA that maybe someone legitimately thought some of these were needed (I don't think that is true but the chances are above 0) but Texas is flat out they just want to restrict the vote. Christ they even used Jim Crow language to defend it.

Look I am not against making Election Integrity a big issue and Election Reform has been needed forever. But there is no scenario where restricting votes, even by what may be termed "legitimate means", adds any layer of integrity. Making it harder to vote, whether in the abstract or as a full on action, lacks any integrity. And these people have done nothing to prove we should take their actions in good faith and you know that.

Put it this way...up until very recently Mail In Voting in many states favored the GOP. It was used most by rural, older voters and military personnel. Now all of a sudden, just by happenstance, because Trump was stupid and encouraged his people NOT to use it and people who didn't want to die of a plague (i.e. Dems) chose to take advantage of it it is a problem? Come on now let's stop pretending we can't see the truth in front of our eyes...

Same thing with the Sunday Church Voting and GOTV drives in parks that they are pushing to restrict. This is nothing new, states like GA and Texas have been doing this forever. (its a Blue and Red State thing) In many districts it is the only way for some of these people to vote. Now, when there is zero evidence it caused any problems, no proof of any fraud, no illegal ballot harvesting or any other made up BS they throw out there, it is all of a sudden a problem because smart Democrats like Stacy Abrams used it to get more minorities to the polls? Right...

And then there is the issue with the new rules that overrule the Secretary of State when it comes to certifying the results. Even if you put it in the most favorable light there is no way it is a coincidence this is happening in the states that ran multiple audits (which verified all the results) and whose SOS and Courts and Governors overruled objections by the GOP. (even when it was GOPers in charge of the elections)

Look the ultimate way to prove something is equal and just is to flip it and see if you still defend it. If Minnesota decided that in the Red Areas they wanted to cut the number of polling stations (this includes Red Suburbs as well with high populations) and methods by which they could send in their ballot would that be ok? If they passed a rule that Anoka County had the same set up as Harris county in TX would that seem right? The answer is of course not!

See the problem is we have a bunch of "Boys Who Cried Wolf" about some sort of shenanigans in the election. In doing so they convinced enough people to believe it that they support laws that serve no purpose but to make it harder on people to exercise their rights. No offense Hovey but you are playing your part in this by sitting on the fence. You basically are playing the Ted Cruz part, and yes you should find that insulting. If you don't know what I mean Rafael stood up on 1/6 and waxed rhapsodic about how "30% of the country doesn't trust our elections and we need to investigate this with a commission". (of course he spent weeks telling them there was fraud and basically dogwhistling a revolution...but that is neither here nor there) You seem to accept that good natured people obviously feel something shady went on and we need to get to the bottom of it! Sorry but that is ridiculous. Every hockey game the fans say they were screwed by the refs. Should their complaints be taken at face value just because they believe it? Should every sports league tailor their outcomes and rules to the whims of people who have an obvious bias and agenda? Of course not...yet you (and a lot like you) seem to think the government should. That is ludicrous...and not only that but they also want to be able to have the teams overrule the league and the refs if they feel the game wasn't fair to them. Yeah that makes sense...

This is not a case of trying to backdoor in a voter id law 4 months before an election...this is full on changing the rules to make it easier to change the results if even their suppression doesn't work. That is the funniest part of all of this...all of these laws are needed because the Dems outsmarted them at their own game. They forced long lines in urban districts so Dems set up having food and water in place so people stayed in line. They cut the number of polling areas and Dems set up Uber/Lyft rides to polling stations or had GOTV rallies to register people and get them to the polls. They put in mail in voting in new states (like in PA where the GOP led Leg implemented it) and then watched as Dems used it to help themselves out. Instead of trying to figure out a way to get more voters, they decided better to just cut the number of people even more. This is what you do when your policies suck.

 

[Handyman]

Is there any credible evidence (such as successful court cases) that fraudulent voting in Texas has ever been consequential in a state-wide or national election?

In any state?

Not since the 60s that I am aware of. (in Illinois) Closest might be FL in 2000 but that was more suppression (10k Blacks thrown off the roles for no reason) and the crappy ballot there wasn't any illegal votes.

Check out the stats of states that have been doing mail in voting (especially Washington and Oregon) the integrity is through the roof. You have a better chance mining Bitcoin with a Commodore 64 than you do of finding fraud. There is more fraud in a Middle School Presidential Election than there was in this past election and that is not an exaggeration. That is why no lawyer presented evidence in court or, when questioned under oath, said there was any fraud. There wasn't any and to suggest otherwise would be perjury.

There were irregularities...mainly that the Dems actually won and played the game the right way. Well only in the Presidential...down ticket they underperformed which again proves there is no issue here. It wasn't fraud, it was that non-Fascists were fed up with Trump.

 

[aparch]

There were irregularities...mainly that the Dems actually won and played the game the right way. Well only in the Presidential...down ticket they underperformed which again proves there is no issue here. It wasn't fraud, it was that non-Fascists were fed up with Trump.

This is what I don't get... how can they so staunchly argue that there was massive fraud in the presidential section of the ballots, but all the GOP wins down the same ticket were just fine and dandy?

 

[burd]

This is what I don't get... how can they so staunchly argue that there was massive fraud in the presidential section of the ballots, but all the GOP wins down the same ticket were just fine and dandy?

The two narratives--that the election was stolen and that we need new voter laws) support each other and the only chance Rs have in the face of changing demographics: control who will vote. A few Rs probably believe the spin (dump does because of his mental illness), but for most it is just a strategy that need not be believed to pursue.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Complete horse****. You said “not a big fan of.” Than means you’re fine with it. You’re fine with a state legislature awarding itself the power to decide if they want to overturn an election even if all evidence points to that not being the will of the people. You’re fine with the government placing itself ABOVE the people, rather than being in the service OF the people.

Allowing more early voting in more circumstances for more people is not easing or eliminating rules. It increases access to the ballot box - that’s it. It doesn’t allow a single new person to vote and it doesn’t reduce penalties for fraud. It simply provides greater opportunity for people to cast their same legal votes. If voting was from 2-3 pm and I make it 2-4 pm, all I’ve done is increase the likelihood that the polling places will be able to handle more votes more smoothly, should more voters choose to vote. All the “rules” of who can vote are still in place - nothing is being eased or eliminated. Democrats just want to make sure that the process goes smoothly to encourage as much voting as possible. You do agree that voting is a good thing? And that more voting would be a better thing? ‘Cause if not, then I think we found the source of the problem.

Ding. Fucking. Ding.

 

[dxmnkd316]

I think the military may discipline a member of the military for advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government, yeah.

It is a well-established legal fact that joining the military means giving up certain rights. One of those rights is speaking treason.

Sure. Among active duty. What I'm pointing to is that he's no longer active duty and using article 2 against what amounts to a private citizen has some serious questions about its constitutionality that haven't been raised in court (from my uneducated understanding) especially as it relates to speech.

 

[Handyman]

Sure. Among active duty. What I'm pointing to is that he's no longer active duty and using article 2 against what amounts to a private citizen has some serious questions about its constitutionality that haven't been raised in court (from my uneducated understanding) especially as it relates to speech.

No it actually doesn't. (in my similarly uneducated opinion) The problem is he still uses his rank which is not something the military will like when it comes to treason. If he didn't make sure to emphasize he is a General (retired) then you imho you would have more of a point. I am no JAG officer though...never even watched the show ;^)

He was smart...he knew he screwed up and immediately dodged a real answer tot he question, denied it from the word jump after it happened and made sure his new narrative was out there as fast as the video made it out. The military isn't going to cause a ruckus over what could be construed (on its own) as a sarcastic aside. He has hinted at worse (and posted worse) and I guarantee they won't take much more from him ESPECIALLY if some domestic terror happens based on him and Trump. The military doesn't like black eyes...that is why when a General surveyed the aftermath of the NG dealing with the protesters in DC they walked back that action pretty darn quick. (IIRC he apologized either the next day or two days later)

Its academic anyways, they aren't looking into it so as long as he doesn't foul up again (he will) he is fine.

 

[dxmnkd316]

It's not that he knew he screwed up, he simply was informed that life in prison was probably a bad gamble regardless of how likely or unlikely it was.

 

[Handyman]

Watch the video...he knows in the moment that is why he says "one more question" or something. He realized he said the quiet part out loud.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Per NYT:

“Breaking News: The Justice Department waged a secret battle to seize logs of New York Times reporters' emails in a hunt for their sources, obtaining a gag order to bar executives from disclosing the effort. A Times lawyer called the move unprecedented.”

totally normal

 

[dxmnkd316]

How do you not leak that?

 

[Handyman]

Allen West...he of the "Texas should secede" fame...is resigning.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

How do you not leak that?

Because the Times has no balls and is a shining example of access journalism.

 

[rufus]

Because the Times has no balls and is a shining example of access journalism.

And, because their executives are more aligned with the GQP than they are with practicing journalism.