Depends on the election. Being a republican doesn’t insulate a politician from sucking at their job or advancing bad policy.
Being a Democrat, on the other hand, virtually guarantees it nowadays. Exceptions like Tulsi Gabbard exist, but they are increasingly few and far between given the radical shift of the Democrats I’ve witnessed in my lifetime.
For another example of woke absurdity marching ahead, our newly woke military announced it will use tax dollars for gender reassignment surgery. This is absurd but just a drop in the woke bucket when it comes to concerning policy changes. I’ll let former Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw explain the implications…
I’ve got to get to work and I’m well aware you can argue in circles for hours. It is, after all, a lot easier to find wiggle room to argue against someone than it is to actually take a stand and advocate for a policy.
Here’s a parting question. Can you advocate for any policy of Biden’s? Pick one and explain why it is good. What sort of improved outcomes are in store for us?
Sure. We don’t have evidence of any significant fraud. So why are all these state GoP politicians spending their time and tax payer dollars “fixing” something that isn’t broken? It seems they are either incompetent or there is an ulterior motive.
Let’s assume nobody’s ever been caught embezzling money, stealing property, getting vendor kickbacks or even stealing sticky notes at your job. Upon examination, everything seems to be clean as a whistle.
Would you go to your company’s information security officer and/or CFO to explain why all of the many, many fraud prevention mechanisms commonly used are unnecessary?
Then let’s assume that this company has 160 million employees and has existing security measures in place. Spot checks occurr as verification to ensure no employee is doing anything out of line. Those spot checks basically never return anything nefarious, and indicate that the current security measures are adequate. Now the CFO wants to spend a huge amount (cost of security is it is harder to vote for many) on more security measures. It also turns out that the company spending this huge amount on security measures helps out the CFOs brother who owns the security company.
I believe this is a lot closer to what is happening than what you are saying.
I believe you are very wrong about that. Mostly because you are very wrong about this…
We went over this above.
How did you say that you’d catch a foreign national voting in a state like mine, where the ONLY hurdle to casting a vote is presenting a utility bill with someone’s name on it?
Oh yeah, you said you’d catch them via an election security investigation commission that doesn’t exist. Great idea, but nonexistent investigators don’t do a good job of mitigating fraud.
Nobody is following up on those cases right now. If you follow the process, you get to vote. That is, by definition, the total absence of election security in my state of Maine. It is an entirely unsecure process that’s open to participation by anyone who can show up with a utility bill with an address in the jurisdiction. You are arguing that a home with an unlocked front door is secure because anyone who wants to get inside has to walk up a half flight of stairs.
I have no idea how many people do this in Maine because there is no way to know. There is no way to know because the process is designed so that is the case.
If this was happening to any serious degree, then they would have duplicates voting all over Maine (people don’t do this likely because they have a super high probability of getting caught, if half the people vote in this country, then your odds of getting caught would also be about 50%). It would be obvious that they would have to further verify those votes.
Do spot checks not occur? Do they find any indication of rampant fraud?
I am all for increasing verification post voting to ensure voting is simple to do for everyone, and that the election stays secure. That isn’t the same as saying we don’t do any verification.
Trump had a team after 2016, they were disbanded because they came up with basically a big goose egg when checking around with voters.
When and where people have been given the means to elect their government officials, they have always chosen the best, most effective and moral. Right?
Or has democracy really just been the whims of the mob? Swinging back and forth, destroying the minority and the individual.
Best, effective and moral all seem to be subjective (there are some things we have almost universal agreement on though). Most people do what they think is best, effective and moral, but a few do not.
How about if it is happening to ANY degree, especially considering election outcomes can be decided my small numbers of votes, especially in smaller jurisdictions?
My town alone has thousands of foreign nationals living in it, nearly all of whom could present something like a cellphone bill with an address on it. How many of them are voting? There is NO WAY TO TELL!
I can’t speak for all jurisdictions, but no not in mine. It would probably create a huge uproar from leftwing activists for one, and I don’t think there is anyone charged with such a task in Maine.
Steven Crowder recently did some spot checks in Nevada using the information that’s publicly available. The voter rolls. You can watch them drive to addresses of registered voters to find empty lots, underpasses and other bogus information. Many of them.
Interestingly, someone updated some of those addresses after that show was aired. Even more interestingly, some of the ones they spot checked were changed from one bogus address to another.
Can you show it is happening to any degree? The thing is, we almost see no circumstances of duplicate people voting. The crime you suggested to justify your concern would result in a massive amount of duplicates as the catch rate would be about 50%. How come we are not seeing this? Maybe your example can’t be used to justify more election security.
Oh boy! I’ll post my national enquirer evidence to rebut this I suppose.
Here’s the thing with Crowder. He documents and verifies. It is unfortunate that he needs to retain a lawyer to get keep his show up on social media, but that’s what conservative voices are up against right now.
I have a lot more respect for people like Crowder and even the dullards at the Young Turks than I do for clearly biased activists calling themselves journalists like Don Lemmon. Openly biased opinion journalism does not automatically mean it is deceptive or wrong.
Can you explain why Crowder’s spot check was deceptive, misleading or not worthy of consideration? Or is it just because Crowder?
You’re misunderstanding me completely. The first and foremost example I’ve been using is foreign nationals voting in US elections. In my state they can just show up with the cellphone bill, get added to the voter roll and vote. There is no duplicate. Just a fraudulent vote that will never be caught.
How forth coming are they about their data? Did they look though 500K entries and come up with a few examples? Do they say how many they went through at all? I also question why Trump’s election fraud team came up with a goose egg if it is that easy to find?
I was hoping to get an explanation for this though:
Generally speaking, very forthcoming. That and his sense of humor are why I’m a fan. He posts links to supporting data for every episode and he explained the entire methodology for the exercise in Nevada. It’s not that hard, anyone can do it. Just ask to see the voter rolls and go from there. It helps to have locals who know the streets.
I have a silly habit of following links when they’re used to support an opinion or narrative. I find that Crowder does a much better job of this than, say, the New York Times. I can’t count the number of articles I read in that rag where every link to support the premise was another fact-free narrative article.
The narrative informs us that the narrative is true, in other words.
I’m not making the case for duplicate voting. The example I use is simple and easy-to-understand. The fact that non-citizens can easily vote in my jurisdiction is concerning to me. There’s no duplicate in that scenario.
