The Voting Thread (Procedures, Turnout, Legal Challenges)(Update: Trump to file suit in PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) (2 Viewers)

[Lapaz]

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.

Stanford study: Mail voting doesn't benefit one party over another

Coronavirus-spurred limits have intensified a push to allow more mail balloting in November.

www.politico.com

Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options

Most states offer at least one method for any eligible voter to cast a ballot before Election Day. While some states provide early in-person voting, this webpage addresses absentee voting and all-mail voting.

www.ncsl.org

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.

 

[zztop]

So this happened:

In an interview with local KRMG, first picked up by the Hill, the Oklahoma senator James Lankford was asked what he thought of the refusal by the office of the director of national intelligence to brief the president-elect until another arm of the bureaucracy certified Biden’s victory.

“There is no loss from him getting the briefings, and to be able to do that,” said Lankford. “And if that’s not occurring by Friday, I will step in as well, and to be able to push and to say this needs to occur, so that regardless of the outcome of the election ... people can be ready for that actual task.”

then not long after the crawfishing began:

Republican backpedals after saying he’d ‘step in’ if Biden doesn’t receive briefings

I wonder who called him up and admonished him for trying to do what was right for the country

 

[SaintForLife]

Further, the number of people in my immediate circle who are claiming there is NO WAY Biden could win without fraud is staggering. Even before the election that was what they were claiming. And now they aren't calmly saying that we'd just like to see the process play out. They are outright saying the election was stolen. Which now that I think about is kind of normal -- I guess it's having the actual President and other elected officials publicly muse that we just throw out the votes and just send their own electors is the unusual part.

The election is over. Biden is President. Even if they find evidence of fraud or irregularities it won't be enough to change the outcome.

Are you really surprised that after 4 years of people claiming the 2016 wasn't legitimate because of Putin that people on the right don't believe the results? Did people not think that would lower voters confidence in the integrity of the election?

You reap what you sow

 

[DaveXA]

So this happened:

In an interview with local KRMG, first picked up by the Hill, the Oklahoma senator James Lankford was asked what he thought of the refusal by the office of the director of national intelligence to brief the president-elect until another arm of the bureaucracy certified Biden’s victory.

“There is no loss from him getting the briefings, and to be able to do that,” said Lankford. “And if that’s not occurring by Friday, I will step in as well, and to be able to push and to say this needs to occur, so that regardless of the outcome of the election ... people can be ready for that actual task.”

then not long after the crawfishing began:

Republican backpedals after saying he’d ‘step in’ if Biden doesn’t receive briefings

I wonder who called him up and admonished him for trying to do what was right for the country

He's on record today saying that Biden should be getting the briefings. He's just trying to have it both ways, saying Biden should be getting the briefings and Trump should litigate his election challenges. So technically he hasn't walked back the comments regarding Biden getting briefings.

 

[Dragon]

The election is over. Biden is President. Even if they find evidence of fraud or irregularities it won't be enough to change the outcome.

Are you really surprised that after 4 years of people claiming the 2016 wasn't legitimate because of Putin that people on the right don't believe the results? Did people not think that would lower voters confidence in the integrity of the election?

You reap what you sow

The difference is in Trumps own words:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Mrs. Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.

A presidential candidate asked a foreign nation to hack his opponent and influence a US Election to his advantage?

Show me any verifiablel proof of election interference by Biden?

 

[bdb13]

The election is over. Biden is President. Even if they find evidence of fraud or irregularities it won't be enough to change the outcome.

Are you really surprised that after 4 years of people claiming the 2016 wasn't legitimate because of Putin that people on the right don't believe the results? Did people not think that would lower voters confidence in the integrity of the election?

You reap what you sow

Not that I believe polls anymore, but where does the statistic come from that a super majority of Democrats believe that Russia "illegitimately installed" Trump as President?

I think it's possible that Russian propaganda helped Trump a bit, but I wouldn't say that Russia illegitimately installed him into power. I think that's probably more in line with what a supermajority of Democrats believe.

 

[wardorican]

The election is over. Biden is President. Even if they find evidence of fraud or irregularities it won't be enough to change the outcome.

Are you really surprised that after 4 years of people claiming the 2016 wasn't legitimate because of Putin that people on the right don't believe the results? Did people not think that would lower voters confidence in the integrity of the election?

You reap what you sow

You know how you never actually learn what Democrats thought? By asking conservatives to tell us what democrats thought.

Russia Interfered with our election. It was mostly through massive disinformation. Not through actual voter fraud.

 

[wardorican]

So this happened:

In an interview with local KRMG, first picked up by the Hill, the Oklahoma senator James Lankford was asked what he thought of the refusal by the office of the director of national intelligence to brief the president-elect until another arm of the bureaucracy certified Biden’s victory.

“There is no loss from him getting the briefings, and to be able to do that,” said Lankford. “And if that’s not occurring by Friday, I will step in as well, and to be able to push and to say this needs to occur, so that regardless of the outcome of the election ... people can be ready for that actual task.”

then not long after the crawfishing began:

Republican backpedals after saying he’d ‘step in’ if Biden doesn’t receive briefings

I wonder who called him up and admonished him for trying to do what was right for the country

'all of their questions answered'

Well, what if they're really stupid questions, Senator?

 

[efil4]

The election is over. Biden is President. Even if they find evidence of fraud or irregularities it won't be enough to change the outcome.

Are you really surprised that after 4 years of people claiming the 2016 wasn't legitimate because of Putin that people on the right don't believe the results? Did people not think that would lower voters confidence in the integrity of the election?

You reap what you sow

Tell Max to trot out this "supermajority" that thought the 2016 election was "stolen" thru Russian activities.

It was made VERY clear from the get go that Russian INTERFERENCE with disinformation and propaganda is what everyone was talking about. Nothing close to Russia actually altering voting machines/vote counts. Armed with THAT info, very few fell for the Facebook/Instagram/Twitter propaganda in 2020. Thats why Trump lost by 5,000,000 votes.

Had that TRULY been the case, you think Hillary and Dems would have simply stopped at conceding the next day?

Stop it. This is all part of the R narrative to MAKE their most hardened supporters continue giving $$$ and stay frosty for however long they can keep this charade going into 2022/2024.

It truly is amazing that adult men and women just cant see whats going on right before their eyes. Amazing.

 

[MT15]

Repeating lies from “pundits” saying things that aren’t true to turn the blame back around on Democrats for the current inexcusable behavior of the Republican Party?

good lord, that’s rich.

 

[Dragon]

More stupid and dangerous bullshirt from Trump sycophants.

From the most popular US ambassador to Denmark to the single most unpopular so far

 

[zztop]

He's on record today saying that Biden should be getting the briefings. He's just trying to have it both ways, saying Biden should be getting the briefings and Trump should litigate his election challenges. So technically he hasn't walked back the comments regarding Biden getting briefings.

Guess we'll see what happens when Friday rolls around. I'm not holding my breath

 

[DaveXA]

Guess we'll see what happens when Friday rolls around. I'm not holding my breath

Oh no doubt. I'm with you there. We'll see.

 

[JRad]

Not that I believe polls anymore, but where does the statistic come from that a super majority of Democrats believe that Russia "illegitimately installed" Trump as President?

Yea, I don't know a single person who believes this.

 

[bdb13]

Not that I believe polls anymore, but where does the statistic come from that a super majority of Democrats believe that Russia "illegitimately installed" Trump as President?

I think it's possible that Russian propaganda helped Trump a bit, but I wouldn't say that Russia illegitimately installed him into power. I think that's probably more in line with what a supermajority of Democrats believe.

To add:

I know we're trying to 'both sides' this thing.. but the most direct comparison we can make here is to four years ago and back then in that much closer election, Hillary and the Democrats handled things markedly different than have Trump and the Republicans and his supporters.

This is quite an escalation from what we have seen previously from Republicans or Democrats and I don't think that point's particularly controversial.

So yes, while Republicans may have allowed themselves to become triggered by Democrats and Russia.. I don't think this is in any way a proportional response.

 

[not2rich]

Not that I believe polls anymore, but where does the statistic come from that a super majority of Democrats believe that Russia "illegitimately installed" Trump as President?

From the same place that takes isolated instances of voter fraud and transforms it into "systemic widespread fraud." None of this is coming from a position of good faith. So, they can take their fake outrage based on a fake "super-majority" and stick it up their collective arse.

 

[not2rich]

To add:

I know we're trying to 'both sides' this thing.. but the most direct comparison we can make here is to four years ago and back then in that much closer election, Hillary and the Democrats handled things markedly different than have Trump and the Republicans and his supporters.

This is quite an escalation from what we have seen previously from Republicans or Democrats and I don't think that point's particularly controversial.

So yes, while Republicans may have allowed themselves to become triggered by Democrats and Russia.. I don't think this is in any way a proportional response.

It's not even that. It's a red herring. First, it's a FACT that Russia interfered with the election. However, it's a LIE that a majority of Democrats think Trump didn't legitimately win the electoral college through more votes in the states that mattered.

They're trying to confuse the fact with the lie to justify the fact that a good chunk, if not the majority, of Republicans don't think Biden legitimately won the electoral college through more votes in the states that mattered.

There's no "both sides" to this.

 

[bdb13]

It's not even that. It's a red herring. First, it's a FACT that Russia interfered with the election. However, it's a LIE that a majority of Democrats think Trump didn't legitimately win the electoral college through more votes in the states that mattered.

They're trying to confuse the fact with the lie to justify the fact that a good chunk, if not the majority, of Republicans don't think Biden legitimately won the electoral college through more votes in the states that mattered.

There's no "both sides" to this.

Right I agree... Read my post like I'm being flippant about attempts to 'both sides" it and it makes sense.

 

[superchuck500]

My view on it (and I have receipts on this) was that Trump won the election, that was clear, and he should be inaugurated. And at the same time, there should be a focus in Washington on the international interference into the election as a matter of national security and U.S. intelligence to determine what happened and how we can bolster our systems against interference. And that process should go forward without implication upon Trump's legitimacy (unless that's what the evidence showed after investigation).

I think many shared this view. The problem was that Trump didn't. Despite the obvious conclusions about Russian shenanigans, Trump (mostly likely due to his deep personality flaws or, more cynically, his concern about complicity) decided he had to discourage the whole process because it would call his election into question or make it somehow less meaningful. (This from the man who at the same time was in a public dispute trying to back up his ridiculous claims that his inauguration was the most attended ever).

Of course, that only made it worse - it made it seem like he was hiding something. And over the course of the next few months, officials in Trump's orbit made misleading statements about their Russian contacts and the next thing you know, there's a Special Counsel appointed.

I think that, at first, only the most cynical Democrat base believed that Trump was illegitimate. But that number grew as the investigation went on, and Trump's posture through that entire period encouraged those beliefs. Just like Trump's distortions and attacks are encouraging another group of Americans to mistrust the process.

So much of this comes back to Donald Trump's narcissistic personality disorder. I'd say I can't wait for the day that he no longer carries much influence, but I'm afraid that day will never come (while he's alive at least).