- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Breaking: Kari Lake loses trial to overturn Arizona Governor election - Vows to appeal
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:26 pm to LSU2ALA
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:26 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
It’s like doing get out the vote drives
nothing wrong with that -
everything is wrong with not being able to convince that voter to actually go to the polls and cast a vote in person.
This is not a spur-of-the-moment no-consequence vote for "cutest boy in 6th grade" = this is something that ought to be a very personal decision by a person in secret, on his own, weighing the issues in a silent moment of real reflection.
To reduce this as equivalent going down to skid row and rousing drunks and dopers up off the street and poking a ballot in front of them and asking for a signature. (even if no 'inducements' are offered
) The attitude of the DEMOCRAT political machine is obvious = what is best for the USA is not important = all that matters is that DEMOCRATs remain in power. Anything you can get away with is welcome and silently celebrated while 'not seeing anything wrong with it.'
2
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:27 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Ballot harvesting as I understand it is a legal process in Arizona. Some states have banned the practice. I don’t know enough about the law in this area to know whether Arizona has set forth a list a requirements that ballot harvesters must meet to be legit, or whether it is simply legal bc no law prohibits it.
After 2020, Arizona enacted a law that restricted "harvesting" to co-domiciled voters. A husband can drop off a ballot for a wife. A mother can drop off ballots for 3 voting-age children in college. And people that are under the care of others can have their votes dropped off by the caregiver. No other "harvesting" is legal.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:28 pm to Wednesday
quote:
t is a process, like universal mail in voting that is rife for fraud, but it’s not the fraud potential that makes it so odious to me
I think the issue is you have completely disintrested/uneducated voters affecting our public policy at the national level. Aka the empire killer of having people vote their own benefits. We're pseudo there already but now it's now fairly overt.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:30 pm to LSU2ALA
The harvester isn’t pressuring people to show up at the polls to vote. He’s pressuring people to fill out a piece of paper in front of him the way the harvester wants. There is absolutely no way to enforce or prevent the harvester imposing his will on the voter.
We don’t enforce the voter protections on the books now. If we did - there would have been a consequence for Maricopa to fail to provide its chain of custody records. It’s an abhorrent practice, and it should absolutely be outlawed, if not declared a violation of the constitutional rights of non harvested voters
We don’t enforce the voter protections on the books now. If we did - there would have been a consequence for Maricopa to fail to provide its chain of custody records. It’s an abhorrent practice, and it should absolutely be outlawed, if not declared a violation of the constitutional rights of non harvested voters
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:32 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Yes. A homeless person and an Alzheimer’s patient who had their ballot filled out by Stacy Abrams definitely made the decision.
If you are saying they bought their votes, then there are laws to take care of that. Why are you trying to introduce new ones that address this? Is it for the reason the other poster said that there more of them then you so you are looking to have fewer voters? If there is intimidation, vote buying, or taking advantage of someone who is mentally incapacitated, those are already going to be crimes. Adding more laws on top of that makes me think you want to lower voter turnout as that helps your particular candidates.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
POLICY-wise? It raises DAMNED GOOD questions, and it is those questions that lead me to the opinion that allowing voting in this matter is BAD, BAD, BAD public policy.
And that’s fine if you hold that point of view; however, I’m generally of the position that if you want to make it harder to vote because that helps you win then you have a messaging problem. It’s not the voters fault that they don’t like your message. Change your message and policies to meet the voter. It’s like a business owner griping because no one will buy his goods. Sell goods the marketplace wants.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:37 pm to Wednesday
quote:
chain of custody
That’s the most important overarching issue here, and Wednesday I’m sure you are quite familiar with the relevance and significance of that concept. If there were a relatively slight “hole” in the chain of custody of any physical evidence in a criminal trial, regardless how important that item of evidence might be (even the “smoking gun” itself)…..too bad so sad, that evidence will be excluded. No matter if it’s the single most important piece of evidence and proof in a murder case. Well, this scenario is every bit as important IMO (our electoral process) thus chain of custody should be every bit as crucial.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:43 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
Change your message and policies to meet the voter
"Just become Machiavellian leftists"
What a world where that's a middle of the road opinion
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:44 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
this is something that ought to be a very personal decision by a person in secret, on his own, weighing the issues in a silent moment of real reflection.
That’s your point of view. There is no legal requirement for this. Everyone’s vote means something different to them. Your point of view is well in the minority I would imagine as most people are not doing the soul searching you are looking for.
quote:
The attitude of the DEMOCRAT political machine is obvious = what is best for the USA is not important = all that matters is that DEMOCRATs remain in power. Anything you can get away with is welcome and silently celebrated while 'not seeing anything wrong with it.'
Democrats are doing what they believe is best for the country. Of course they want to remain in power. The GOP wants to remain in power just as much. The GOP believes they are doing what is best for the country. The MAGA movement believes the same. It’s just different points of view. This assigning evil intent to the other side as so many on both sides want to do is really bad for our civic discourse overall.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:45 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:I hear ya.
And that’s fine if you hold that point of view; however, I’m generally of the position that if you want to make it harder to vote because that helps you win then you have a messaging problem. It’s not the voters fault that they don’t like your message. Change your message and policies to meet the voter. It’s like a business owner griping because no one will buy his goods. Sell goods the marketplace wants
I readily-admit that I think universal suffrage is a horrible idea, but we seem to be stuck with it. As such, I am not losing any sleep over policies that make it more difficult for lazy and/or stupid people to vote. I would be perfectly OK with a policy that kept 90% of DU and 75% of this place away from the polls.
Sorry, not sorry.
This post was edited on 12/26/22 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:47 pm to Wednesday
quote:
We don’t enforce the voter protections on the books now.
So the answer is to add additional laws? That makes no sense to me.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:47 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:And about 2% of the population agrees with you.
this is something that ought to be a very personal decision by a person in secret, on his own, weighing the issues in a silent moment of real reflection.
Hell, most just pull the "straight ticket" lever for the team Jersey that they like best.
Hell, an ever-increasing percentage of the population will excoriate you for NOT pulling that lever.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:52 pm to Wednesday
This is such a clear case. The law was not followed. Votes without chain of custody were tabulated and used to defeat Kari Lake. Violations brought to light. Sham trial throws out the true and everything is just dismissed.
Idiots are hoping something was going to happen. Same idiots are hoping the appeal will be upheld and a real trial happens. Wake up!
Idiots are hoping something was going to happen. Same idiots are hoping the appeal will be upheld and a real trial happens. Wake up!
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:55 pm to davyjones
quote:
That’s the most important overarching issue here, and Wednesday I’m sure you are quite familiar with the relevance and significance of that concept. If there were a relatively slight “hole” in the chain of custody of any physical evidence in a criminal trial, regardless how important that item of evidence might be (even the “smoking gun” itself)…..too bad so sad, that evidence will be excluded. No matter if it’s the single most important piece of evidence and proof in a murder case. Well, this scenario is every bit as important IMO (our electoral process) thus chain of custody should be every bit as crucial.
I do agree with this in that if there is a small flaw in a system you have to assume larger ones are possible. The whole thing breaks down. The problem you get into is how do you solve it? There should be penalties if they aren’t followed; however, they aren’t going to throw people in jail for being incompetent government employees. They also aren’t going to throw out elections either unless something is just egregious. It’s a tough one.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:55 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
I’m generally of the position that if you want to make it harder to vote because that helps you win then you have a messaging problem.
We don’t want to make it harder to vote, we want to make it harder to cheat. You agree with the cheating as it helps “your side”, but try picturing the shoe on the other foot.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:58 pm to wutangfinancial
quote:
"Just become Machiavellian leftists"
How is it Machiavellian to realize you have a losing issue and adapting. If people don’t buy what you are selling, it’s not their fault. You have a bad product.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 3:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I hear ya. I readily-admit that I think universal suffrage is a horrible idea, but we seem to be stuck with it. As such, I am not losing any sleep over policies that make it more difficult for lazy and/or stupid people to vote. I would be perfectly OK with a policy that kept 90% of DU and 75% of this place away from the polls. Sorry, not sorry.
Nothing to be sorry about. You are upfront about why you want to suppress voters and don’t try a fig leaf of ballot integrity to do it. I respect that. I fundamentally disagree, but I respect your honesty. When people are honest about their motivations, then you can have a real discussion.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 3:06 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
We don’t want to make it harder to vote, we want to make it harder to cheat. You agree with the cheating as it helps “your side”, but try picturing the shoe on the other foot.
I do not support cheating or breaking the law. Where is the proof that was done here? Lake made huge accusations in public and proved none of it at trial.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 3:07 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:I laugh at all the "ballot integrity" blowhards. Their goal is the same. They just lack the honesty to admit it ... sometimes even to themselves.
You are upfront about why you want to suppress voters and don’t try a fig leaf of ballot integrity to do it. I respect that. I fundamentally disagree, but I respect your honesty. When people are honest about their motivations, then you can have a real discussion.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 3:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I laugh at all the "ballot integrity" blowhards. Their goal is the same. They just lack the honesty to admit it ... sometimes even to themselves.
In all fairness, the left does it as well by digging in their heels on ID requirements which really should not be a big deal and could be addressed if both parties worked together. They act like it’s a civil rights issue. They are doing it because they know the more voters there are the better chance they win. It’s the very reason the right wants to suppress. The GOP will win if the voters are really committed ones. The Democrats will win if more less committed voters come out.
Incidentally, this is the reason the GOP should run from Trump in 2024. He turns out the less committed voters, and that will get the GOP smoked.
Page 25 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News