No. It’s a diversion from him telling people to drink Clorox and his complete lack of competence to handle a press conference on Covid, let alone lead a response to it. His first attempt was Obamagate which went nowhere.
What the hell was THAT all about anyway?
Trump has been re-tweeting Victoria Toensing a lot lately… This Victoria, lawyer for the second-in-command of the Russian mob. I’m sure they’ll find some “conspiracy” just in time for the election…
Dmitry Firtash, a wealthy Ukrainian and onetime business partner of Paul Manafort who is facing extradition to the U.S. on corruption charges, has hired a legal team with close ties to President Donald Trump.
The lawyers retained by Firtash are Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, according to representatives for Firtash and for the attorneys.
Oh my Hell…
LOL. It took two clicks and a CTRL-F to “scrutinize” a post I knew was false when I read it.
Let me know when you’ve scrutinized Democrat policies as much as I’ve criticized Trump in this thread alone.
1 Like
That makes no bloody sense. Republicans are for voter ID laws. Democrats are against them. One of their arguments is that minorities don’t have the mental or financial ability to procure something as simple as a state ID. They could easily make a law providing one to each legal citizen upon reaching adulthood. They haven’t. Pretty easily understood.
3 Likes
Who among you believes tech companies who lobbied and received protection from defamation lawsuits under federal law by claiming they are platforms and not publishers think they should still be considered platforms after editorializing or de-platforming communication they don’t like or agree with? Should they now be liable for what they allow on their platform if they are not going to treat every voice the same?
Let’s all agree Trump’s response was idiotic so as to keep to the topic at hand.
2 Likes
LOL!!! is right.
I am sure you will let me know where my hypocrisy has shown itself, @twojarslave…but I don’t think that I have scrutinized Party Policy on either side. (Let me know what your CTRL-F tells you).
I have criticized Biden; and am on record as saying that it is terrible that the only two choices Americans have are Biden and Trump. I have also discussed his actions and laughed at his “CornPop” story on more than one occasion. (“Biden/CornPop” 2020!!!).
As long as Conservatives give Trump a pass on things that would have gotten Obama hung from the Washington Monument; I will continue to point out the hypocrisy.
True. You like your broad narratives and seem to avoid getting into policy details. I don’t think I’m being unfair when I say you seem to prefer to keep political discussions on a level of depth similar to celebrity gossip. To each their own.
2 Likes
Ooooooo! I am SO hurt, @twojarslave…
It wasn’t meant as an insult. Just an observation. I apologize for the poor choice of words.
I find it odd to discuss politics without, you know, discussing policy. Not everyone cares about policy, and that’s fine. You are not alone in valuing personality traits over policy positions, or whatever else you may value over policy positions.
There’s plenty to talk about, as you know.
It’s not a thing. Trump doesn’t want mail in voting because he’s worried that a big segment of people who disapprove of his record (at risk seniors and others) will be able to cast a vote, when otherwise they might stay at home for health reasons. A friendly reminder doesn’t support anything in the public interest (like preventing fraud), he couldn’t care less - he supports things in his self-interest.
Over to you, cold hard statistics:
“One hundred forty-three cases of fraud using mailed ballots over the course of 20 years comes out to seven to eight cases per year, nationally. It also means that across the 50 states, there has been an average of three cases per state over the 20-year span. That is just one case per state every six or seven years. We are talking about an occurrence that translates to about 0.00006 percent of total votes cast.”
Given the similar scope and scale of fraud and suspected fraud at the business I work at, would you recommend abandoning our IT and way-of-working policies designed to prevent fraud? It would, after all, speed up the process a lot and I don’t have any reason to believe any of my co-workers might do such a thing.
If not, why would you think about the two situations differently?
Do you think all crime is detected? Until now, absentee balloting accounted from 10-20% of all ballots cast. It’s not hard to understand how the use of widespread mail-in votes could easily be subject to fraud. Is voting is as sacred as people think, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to keep it as sacrosanct as we can? What could be the purpose of pushing a voting system that can easily be tainted? How can you be sure the vote that was mailed in was indeed mailed in by the intended party?
Medicare fraud alone is in the tens of billions a year. Are you going to tell me with a straight face the federal government is going to be able to prevent mail-in voter fraud? For fucks sake, the federal government won’t even prosecute Congressional insider trading. Yeah, you’ve got me convinced they take a serious look at voter fraud.
I don’t know what your process looks like, but no - you’d scale up your antitrust mechanisms. Allowing mail in voting isn’t the equivalent of abandoning antifraud efforts - it’s not an accurate analogy. It would be more akin to the business doubling in size and simply scaling your antifraud mechanisms to handle the larger version of the business.
This seems like an obvious increase in risk, but I only know about managing fraud risk in the real world. This other world where we assume people won’t take advantage of system vulnerabilities is not familiar to me.
It isn’t some other world - governments have antifraud mechanisms in place for absentee and mail in votes, all they would need to do is scale up in the same way your business would if you engaged in a higher volume of transactions due to an increase in size.
It’s easy.
Easily subject to? No. The data show that not to be the case. See the article I posted.
On what basis are you claiming it’s easily tainted? Read the article - it hasn’t been easily tainted since AEI started tracking it.
Generally, yes. Medicare fraud is entirely something different - the volume of transactions, insanely complex coding, and limited ability to audit causes those problems - and the government still prosecutes and reclaims juge amounts of money. Yoir comparison is not even apples to oranges - it’s more like apples to tennis rackets.
What is the fraud prevention mechanism you’re speaking of? Can you explain how it works?
If you consider the fact that mail-in-voting isn’t a stand-alone policy in a bubble, it most certainly increases the risk of fraud. How do you reconcile a policy position like that with a policy position of not requiring ID’s and allowing people to register same day?
Again, what is the fraud prevention mechanism?
Let me give you an example. In business we use, among other things, a concept called segregation of duties. The example I gave above is classic. The person who can create a vendor can’t cut the PO. The person who cuts the PO can’t create a vendor or receive it. The person who receives it can’t create it or pay the invoice. We make sure the process of vendor payment involves as many people as possible, deliberately slowing it down to manage the risk of fraud.
This concept ensures that fraudulent purchases are very difficult to make, and it works quite well. Can you explain how the mechanisms you describe work?
Voting is not a Federally managed system. It is managed on the State and Local Level.
The people who manage these voting systems take great pride in managing these systems, and of what many view as almost a “sacred” position. (Based on what they are protecting).
What they are telling us, both “Red” and “Blue”…and the data supports…is that Fraud simply is not a problem, even with mail-in.
In answer to the question:…“Shouldn’t we be doing everything in our power to…?”
These AG’s and election officials are some of the most exacting (dare I say compulsive?) people you have ever met. They actually take it as a sacred duty to make sure that their State Election processes are as free of fraud and abuse as they possibly can be.
You want to make sure things are not screwed up?
Keep Trump out of the process.