The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (4 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Lapaz

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    1,748
    Reaction score
    1,522
    Age
    61
    Location
    Alabama
    Offline
    There is a lot of push-back from Trump on voting by mail, but most states allow it, and 1/3 allow it without any excuse. His rationale is that it will lead to vast fraud, but of course that isn't his real reason. His real reason is that he thinks it will be worse for conservatives, but studies have shown that states that have instituted much broader voting by mail haven't had any statistical changes in party voting.



    Although, normally voting by mail doesn't affect party votes, I bet it might this year if we have another resurgence of Covid, because I think the right is much more apt to discount the virus than the left. I know that is why Trump is against it.

    Whether you're left or right wing, expanding mail in votes is the right thing to do to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus, to expand voter participation, and to make it easier for those that do show up to stay distant. It will also allow any people with susceptibilities to remain safer. I think voting by mail could be made extremely secure by having people vote using traditional postal mail, coupled with requiring a confirmation either by phone, email or text. If done by phone, then voters can provide confirmation that can include confirming their form number. If done by email or text, it can include a picture of their form, and then confirmation that that was their form. Rather than staffers individually calling people, this can be automated by having voters call the number, text the number, or email the address provided to them on their form. A website can even be created with a database of those that have voted, and perhaps a link to allow people to confirm their vote was correctly registered. For people without computers, a site can include a means to access the database over the phone with some confirmation information. These types of systems are used extensively by banks and other sites that need security, so I think they are mature enough to use. We could even use such a site for people to confirm their vote on the day of the election.
     
    The debunked misinformation being regurgitated in this thread is exactly why what Trump is doing is so dangerous. It won't matter when it's proven false, once the claim is made for millions of Americans it happened. Like the tales of Paul Bunyon, the stories will grow and take on a life of their own. A year from now history will have warped and people will be making patently false sweeping statements that bear no resemblance to the truth, just like we are reading now about 2000, 2016, and the last 4 years.

    It's why I said the damage is already done. It doesn't even matter what Trump does from here on out because, in the immortal words of Thanos, reality is already whatever his supporters want it to be.
     
    The debunked misinformation being regurgitated in this thread is exactly why what Trump is doing is so dangerous. It won't matter when it's proven false, once the claim is made for millions of Americans it happened. Like the tales of Paul Bunyon, the stories will grow and take on a life of their own. A year from now history will have warped and people will be making patently false sweeping statements that bear no resemblance to the truth, just like we are reading now about 2000, 2016, and the last 4 years.

    It's why I said the damage is already done. It doesn't even matter what Trump does from here on out because, in the immortal words of Thanos, reality is already whatever his supporters want it to be.
    This is why the new atty general needs to go on tv on jan 21st and read all of the mueller report
     
    This is why the new atty general needs to go on tv on jan 21st and read all of the mueller report

    I would agree, but I don't want to read through the single post of 74 Tweets filled with highlighted out of context documents refuting it that we'd have to suffer through if he did.
     
    Last edited:




    1605234208690.png
     
    Is that why I just heard on the news that 2 officials from DHS had been fired? 🙄
    Nope. I'm pretty sure that tweet came from CISA Director Christopher Krebs. He's been calling out Trump's lies on CISA's feed and his personal Twitter account since the election. He's already told staff he expects to get the axe from the White House soon.
     
    Nope. I'm pretty sure that tweet came from CISA Director Christopher Krebs. He's been calling out Trump's lies on CISA's feed and his personal Twitter account since the election. He's already told staff he expects to get the axe from the White House soon.
    Just to clarify:

    Two senior Department of Homeland Security officials have been forced to resign by the White House, according to sources familiar with the resignations.
    Among them was a top official in DHS's cyber arm, who resigned amid a national security shakeup by the Trump administration.
    Bryan Ware served as assistant director for cybersecurity at DHS' Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

    It's all connected. :hmm:
     
    So, either they're running out of good lawyers or running out of money, or maybe both? :scratch:

    Probably more of the former than the latter.

    Contrary to popular opinion, truly good lawyers generally have a solid ethical base and won't advance a case they don't believe has merit at some level. (Legal merit doesn't always appear "right" to the public, but merit nonetheless).

    When you add to the mix that the effort is harmful to the public interest and the United States of America, it's even more difficult. And when you're talking about a large lawfirm with hundreds of owners ("partners"), the internal issues magnify those concerns.
     
    The statement that "Plaintiffs will be best served" if the firm withdraws tells me enough. I assume the client wanted them to allege facts or advance legal arguments to the court that they disagreed with, probably for ethical reasons (they knew the allegations were likely not true or the legal arguments were not "good faith extensions of existing law"). Donald Trump would be the ultimate nightmare client.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom