19 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

After 2016, you all still think it's about dirty tricks?    After a rich NYC developer convinced the keys to national elections that he was better at listening to them than the party they built?   I suppose it's easier to blame fraud or "gerrymandering" than risk splitting your party apart by taking on the fringes.   You're making it too easy and that helps the GOP crazies as well.

 

I never claimed fraud, that's the GOP's thing whenever they lose. I think Trump legitimately won, despite my abject hatred for him. But the GOP's claims of fraud are undermining democracy across the country, and acts like kicking out Tennessee legislators for protest, or blatantly ignoring new laws against gerrymandering in Ohio, or attempting to get rid of the newly elected state Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin because they're afraid she'll rule against the GOP-heavy maps, are more examples of dirty tactics. Florida alone could fill an entire page. And do we really need to go into the the 91-felony-count traitor Trump who the party loves and who recently claimed he wanted to execute a general simply because he didn't like him?

 

The bottom line is that the current GOP is a threat to our democracy and pretty much everything decent. It really doesn't matter how many people like them, that remains true.

 

Edited September 27, 20231 yr by jonoh81

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

I never claimed fraud, that's the GOP's thing whenever they lose. I think Trump legitimately won, despite my abject hatred for him.

 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

The bottom line is that the current GOP is a threat to our democracy and pretty much everything decent. It really doesn't matter how many people like them, that remains true.

It is not a GOP problem. This is an issue with the Dems too. There are still a significant number of Dems who think Al Gore still won the election in 2000 even though the facts show the Bush did in fact win Florida even after counting the ballots. Stacey Abrams still claims she did not lose the election in Georgia in 2018 (and I assume 2022 too).  There are countless of other Dem candidates or supporters who still support much of this line of thinking. It really is not much different than those who feel Kari Lake is the legitimate governor of Arizona or Trump had the election stolen from him. 

 

It is not just a GOP disease but it is something with politics on the whole. Even down at the state and local levels, people are taking their political ideologies to a level of zealotry where they refuse to accept the peaceful transfer of power and refuse to cooperate with a D or R depending ontheir leanings, even if it is for the common good of all

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

It is not a GOP problem. This is an issue with the Dems too. There are still a significant number of Dems who think Al Gore still won the election in 2000 even though the facts show the Bush did in fact win Florida even after counting the ballots. Stacey Abrams still claims she did not lose the election in Georgia in 2018 (and I assume 2022 too).  There are countless of other Dem candidates or supporters who still support much of this line of thinking. It really is not much different than those who feel Kari Lake is the legitimate governor of Arizona or Trump had the election stolen from him. 

 

It is not just a GOP disease but it is something with politics on the whole. Even down at the state and local levels, people are taking their political ideologies to a level of zealotry where they refuse to accept the peaceful transfer of power and refuse to cooperate with a D or R depending ontheir leanings, even if it is for the common good of all

 

.... cmon. 

 

it's not comparable. At all.

4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

.... cmon. 

 

it's not comparable. At all.

Outside of Trump's histrionics??? What is not comparable?? You know I am not a Trump fan, but lets call a spade a spade here. 

This has been going on by both sides since the Al Gore years and it has only been getting more and more amped up as time has passed. Trump being Trump, of course he acts like he did and continues to be a sore loser. Like everything with Trump, he will go where nobody else would ever dare. He has no shame. 

That does not change the fact that this is not just a GOP thing, but a deeper issue with the electorate. Heck even in 2021, Terry McCauliiffe would not admit that Trump legitimately won in 2016 and still holds on to the debunked Russian Collusion myth.  

 

How is Stacey Abrams different than Kari Lake?? Please tell me how it is not comparable.

 

Please do not look at this as a defense of Trump. He is a horrible person and the fact that people are still so enthralled by the guy is beyond me, but he, like Kari Lake, Like Stacey Abrams are more symptoms of other issues brewing with society.

 

 

 

 

I just hope that the states can get enough of them together to nullify the Electoral College since that's the only way Republicans win the White House so much.

39 minutes ago, GCrites said:

I just hope that the states can get enough of them together to nullify the Electoral College since that's the only way Republicans win the White House so much.

That is short sighted. At this time in history, the electoral college favors Republicans. At other times it has favored Democrats. Getting rid of the EC because it would help the opposition party is not the right reason to do it because the pendulum always swings back. 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

How is Stacey Abrams different than Kari Lake?? Please tell me how it is not comparable.

Really?   How about start at their Twitter threads and let me know the last time Stacy Abrams mentioned something about her election loss?  

 

Kari Lake tweets about it literally 20 times a day for over a year now.  

Stacey Abrams alleged that, as Secretary of State, Kemp aggressively purged voters from the rolls. In fact, he removed 1.4 million registered voters. 300,000 had been purged because the state claimed they moved, but they hadn't. 

 

These people were disproportionally black and disproportionately democratic voters. She lost by 55,000 votes.

 

She has a strong case to say that as Secretary of State, Kemp won the race by purging voters from the rolls (many without merit).

 

Kari Lake claims everything and anything that she can to get attention and reduce trust in the system. She doesn't have a legitimate claim to any improper actions or illegal activities. There's not even a hint of voter suppression by officials.

 

Stacey Abrams had legitimate criticisms of Kemp's actions as SoS. Kari Lake is just a sore loser. 

10 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Stacey Abrams had legitimate criticisms of Kemp's actions as SoS. Kari Lake is just a sore loser. 

They were both sore losers. Both refused to concede, both claimed they were the person who got more votes. Both claim they would be governor if it were not for those pesky kids who ruined their plan (a little Scooby Doo reference).  

 

As for kemp purging voters without merit from rolls, that is BS. There was  a process for purging voters and if you did not care enough to take the basic steps to keep your status active, it was subject to being purged. Just because it was purged did not prevent you from registering again if it was done by a mistake of some sort. There is a certain level of personal responsibility here and if we want to have an educated electorate, we need to at least hold people responsible for following a basic process to ensure they have a right to vote.   At the end of the day, Kemp got more votes, he became governor and Stacey Abrams refused to publicly acknowledge it. 

 

As for Kari Lake, she is nothing more than a demagogue and self promoter who is trying to capitalize on the Trump electorate to garner personal fame. I think she is very insincere and just a publicity hog. Hopefully, she never ascends to any significant office. 

11 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Really?   How about start at their Twitter threads and let me know the last time Stacy Abrams mentioned something about her election loss?  

 

Kari Lake tweets about it literally 20 times a day for over a year now.  

Sorry, I do not waste my time going through Stacey Abrams twitter thread from 5 years ago. 

Nor do I waste my time giving Kari Lake any time of day. 

 

After Stacey lost to Kemp for the 2nd time, the sheen on her star dimmed quite a bit so nobody pays attention to her anymore. Sort of like Gillum in Florida who almost won governor and then was indicted on Federal charges a year or so later. 

46 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Edited September 28, 20231 yr by Clefan14

51 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

As for kemp purging voters without merit from rolls, that is BS. There was  a process for purging voters

 

There are tons of legal processes that are morally corrupt and abused for political gain. Kemp was aggressively purging voters so he had a better chance of winning his election. 

 

I know you don't care, but: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/10/29/georgia-voting-registration-records-removed

8 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

There are tons of legal processes that are morally corrupt and abused for political gain. Kemp was aggressively purging voters so he had a better chance of winning his election. 

 

I know you don't care, but: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/10/29/georgia-voting-registration-records-removed

Again, there is individual responsibility here. If you are not actively voting in statewide elections, then you should be responsible for keeping up your voter registration. I really do not have much sympathy for those who were inadvertently removed because 1) They could have regularly voted to prevent this. 2) if they moved, they could have registered to vote at a new location 3) if they wanted to vote, they could have easily re-registered up to about 6 weeks before the election (if not sooner in GA).  4) as every election nears, there are voter registration campaigns all over the place, there is ample time to register, check your registration if you are interested in voting, re-register, change your address, etc.

 

At some point, there has to be a modicum of individual responsibility on the voter to show up and do their civic duty. if they do not care to take a basic step then why is that Brian Kemp's fault? 

 

The article is trying to make it say that the mere purging of voting records for inactivity is wrong. I strongly disagree with that assertion. If voting is important to a person, they will take the steps necessary to do so. There should be some basic steps to vote, otherwise these individuals are no more than party proxies.

18 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Again, there is individual responsibility here. If you are not actively voting in statewide elections, then you should be responsible for keeping up your voter registration.

 

Why?! If you're registered you should stay registered. Why does it matter how often you vote?

 

If you don't travel internationally once every 5 years should you lose your passport? If you don't drive every six months should you lose your license? 

 

See how silly these arguments are? And if we're such a freedom loving nation why do you even need to register? Why can't you register the day of the election? What are people afraid of? What's the point other than to gatekeep elections from common citizens.

6 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Why?! If you're registered you should stay registered. Why does it matter how often you vote?

 

If you don't travel internationally once every 5 years should you lose your passport? If you don't drive every six months should you lose your license? 

 

See how silly these arguments are? And if we're such a freedom loving nation why do you even need to register? Why can't you register the day of the election? What are people afraid of? What's the point other than to gatekeep elections from common citizens.

Does your passport have an expiration date?? Yes, every 10 years.  But hey, why even have passports, people should be free to travel anytime and anywhere and with no cost.

Do you have to renew your driver's license?? Yes, every 3-5 years depending on the state. But why have licenses. Everyone should be able to drive, let's make it a birthright. Limitation on travel is limitation on economic mobility. Cars should be for everyone.

 

See how silly your arguments are? 

 

Why, because every so often we need to check to see that these licenses that we give out are still active and not being misused or that they do not fall into the wrong hands, etc. There are a number of reasons for this.  Same with voting. There should be some affirmative action on the individual every so often to make sure they are active and still engaged as citizens to vote. This does not mean you need to vote in every election, but if you have not voted in an election for 10 years, then you should likely need to re-register to get your data current and up to date.  

Let's be honest here. For all those who cry voter suppression, is it really THAT difficult to register to vote? It takes like 5 minutes. It can be done online, it can be done at any DMV, it can be done at various churches, non profits and BOE's. It can be done with minimal documentation and can be done for the most part until a few weeks before an election.  Does this really disenfranchise anyone who truly wants to vote??? Highly doubtful. Being a citizen should entail some basic responsibility to take action on your behalf. Registering to vote is easy, if people cant' take the basic steps to ensure their registration is current and up to date, then how serious are they about voting anyway?? Probably not very. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

It is not a GOP problem. This is an issue with the Dems too. There are still a significant number of Dems who think Al Gore still won the election in 2000 even though the facts show the Bush did in fact win Florida even after counting the ballots. Stacey Abrams still claims she did not lose the election in Georgia in 2018 (and I assume 2022 too).  There are countless of other Dem candidates or supporters who still support much of this line of thinking. It really is not much different than those who feel Kari Lake is the legitimate governor of Arizona or Trump had the election stolen from him. 

 

It is not just a GOP disease but it is something with politics on the whole. Even down at the state and local levels, people are taking their political ideologies to a level of zealotry where they refuse to accept the peaceful transfer of power and refuse to cooperate with a D or R depending ontheir leanings, even if it is for the common good of all

The "both_sides_ing"  in the quoted post does not consider the relative merit and severity of the post-election complaints (Gore, Abrams, Lake etc.) and public reactions to those complaints.  To claim "both sides do it" and not analyze and verify the cases presented as examples often results in false equivalencies.

 

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Let's be honest here. For all those who cry voter suppression, is it really THAT difficult to register to vote? It takes like 5 minutes. It can be done online, it can be done at any DMV, it can be done at various churches, non profits and BOE's. It can be done with minimal documentation and can be done for the most part until a few weeks before an election.  Does this really disenfranchise anyone who truly wants to vote??? Highly doubtful. Being a citizen should entail some basic responsibility to take action on your behalf. Registering to vote is easy, if people cant' take the basic steps to ensure their registration is current and up to date, then how serious are they about voting anyway?? Probably not very.

 

This is an extraordinarily privileged perspective. 

 

Registering to vote is not easy for everyone. Access to the internet is not equitable. Not everyone has the time or can take off work to go to their local BOE to register. Even if they do have the time they may not have a car or access to other convenient transportation to get there. Not everyone has a drivers license or an equivalent ID, and a lot of the barriers to getting these IDs are the same barriers they are facing to register to vote. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

They were both sore losers. Both refused to concede, both claimed they were the person who got more votes. Both claim they would be governor if it were not for those pesky kids who ruined their plan (a little Scooby Doo reference).  

 

As for kemp purging voters without merit from rolls, that is BS. There was  a process for purging voters and if you did not care enough to take the basic steps to keep your status active, it was subject to being purged. Just because it was purged did not prevent you from registering again if it was done by a mistake of some sort. There is a certain level of personal responsibility here and if we want to have an educated electorate, we need to at least hold people responsible for following a basic process to ensure they have a right to vote.   At the end of the day, Kemp got more votes, he became governor and Stacey Abrams refused to publicly acknowledge it. 

 

As for Kari Lake, she is nothing more than a demagogue and self promoter who is trying to capitalize on the Trump electorate to garner personal fame. I think she is very insincere and just a publicity hog. Hopefully, she never ascends to any significant office. 

If rules, purporting to support "election integrity," produce known disadvantages for certain segments of society to give one side an electoral advantage, they are corrupt.  This includes, but is not limited to, rules regarding early voting, vote by mail, drop box availability, and functional voting machine availability.

3 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Does this really disenfranchise anyone who truly wants to vote??? Highly doubtful.

 

It does. I worked the polls this past election and turned around multiple people because they weren't registered to vote. Or thought they were and were likely purged.

 

Why do you need to vote in x number of elections in order to maintain your (apparent) god given right to democracy. How is that American?

 

Sure passport and license expire, duh, my point though, if you have a valid passport or license and don't use it in that period does that mean you should lose it often without your knowledge? Imagine showing up to the airport to travel internationally thinking your ducks are in a row, and then boom TSA tells you your passport expired because you haven't used it enough. Or you get pulled over and the cop tells you your license expired because you haven't driven enough in the past two weeks. Now do that with citizenship and voting, if you don't use your "right to vote" within some arbitrary timeframe why should you lose it? Why are you so afraid of US citizens having the right to vote? 

 

10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There should be some affirmative action on the individual every so often to make sure they are active and still engaged as citizens to vote

 

Why? Why is it up to you or some republicans to judge whether someone is more "American" (re: "active and engaged", whatever that means) than someone else? Just because someone doesn't vote doesn't mean that they aren't "active or engaged", voting doesn't determine that. Some active community activist may be jaded by politicians then out of nowhere they feel the desire to vote for one after ten years. You, nor the GOP, aren't the arbiter of their "engagement". 

 

13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Registering to vote is easy, if people cant' take the basic steps to ensure their registration is current and up to date, then how serious are they about voting anyway?? Probably not very. 

 

Have you worked an election and seen how many people vote straight party line and don't actually care about what they're voting for? You act like those who vote are on some pedestal. Work an election and get back to us. 

In Ohio, is there a set expiration for your voter registration if for inactivity? We all know that passports are 10 years and Ohio DL are 4-6 years...  

 

If there is not a set period for the expiration of voter registration how is it decided when purges happen and who gets purged? 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

This is an extraordinarily privileged perspective. 

 

Registering to vote is not easy for everyone. Access to the internet is not equitable. Not everyone has the time or can take off work to go to their local BOE to register. Even if they do have the time they may not have a car or access to other convenient transportation to get there. Not everyone has a drivers license or an equivalent ID, and a lot of the barriers to getting these IDs are the same barriers they are facing to register to vote

Ah no it is not a privileged perspective. 

It is called basic civics. Being a citizen takes effort. You cannot expect things to be handed to you. You have to do your part. Voting should be easy, but it should also require a modicum of effort. You want to have an engaged electorate that understands issues and know what they are voting for. 

 

Basic functions like figuring out how to register to vote, keeping up with changing your mailing address and re-registering if you move are minor hassles but the things responsible citizens do. We should encourage responsible citizenship. Freedom is not free, it takes some effort.. 

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Ah no it is not a privileged perspective. 

It is called basic civics. Being a citizen takes effort. You cannot expect things to be handed to you.

 

This isn't an instance of things being given to you. It's literally the state taking something away from you. 

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

See how silly these arguments are? And if we're such a freedom loving nation why do you even need to register?

 

Because people are a)not citizens b)felons c)have moved and so need to vote in the correct precinct/not vote in multiple precincts.

 

Duh.

 

 

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

 What are people afraid of?

 

People voting who are not eligible to vote.  People voting multiple times. 

 

 

Duh. 

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

I worked the polls this past election and turned around multiple people because they weren't registered to vote. Or thought they were and were likely purged.

But don't you think it is the responsibility of the citizen to keep up with that basic task?? Many people move over the course of a decade, every time you move, you will need to update your voter registration so that you vote in the right precinct. If you go to the wrong precinct your vote does not count (or at least you need to cast a provisional ballot that may not count).  It is the basic responsibility of the citizen to keep up with this task. 

If something is truly important to you, you will do what it takes to make sure you can do it. 

2 hours ago, GISguy said:

Why do you need to vote in x number of elections in order to maintain your (apparent) god given right to democracy. How is that American?

That is a misleading statement. Your registration does not expire, but it should be used. If, 10 or 20 years go by and it has never been used, then either something happened or it is not important for you to keep active. If it is purged because you did not take the responsibility to keep it active, then fine, when you are ready to take voting seriously again, you can re-register. 

Also, we need to quit the hyperbole that this voter purge is such an egregious thing. 1) If you get purged and you care about it, then you re-register. 2) Registration is free and cost no money, it can be done in less than 5 minutes, and there are people that will help you do it when you want to do it. This is not overly burdensome. Let's quit pretending it is.  It is a lot easier and less burdensome to register to vote than it is to renew your passport. 

 

Your God given right to democracy, like every God given right, also involves action on your part. God gives you lots of things, but in order to receive them you have to take some action on your end. So based on your own logic, it is very American.

 

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

if you have a valid passport or license and don't use it in that period does that mean you should lose it often without your knowledge? Imagine showing up to the airport to travel internationally thinking your ducks are in a row, and then boom TSA tells you your passport expired because you haven't used it enough. Or you get pulled over and the cop tells you your license expired because you haven't driven enough in the past two weeks. Now do that with citizenship and voting, if you don't use your "right to vote" within some arbitrary timeframe why should you lose it? Why are you so afraid of US citizens having the right to vote? 

again, a false premise. One of the reasons these timeframes exist is because people move, circumstances change, people die, etc. An expiration date will essentially purge invalid licenses or passports without further action. It is a security mechanism for TSA and the BMV. You do not have to worry about millions of dead people's licenses getting passed around. If you want to keep up your driver's license or passport, you must pay a fee.  Last I heard, you do not have that with voting. 

 

You want to take things to the hyperbolic level. I think every citizen should vote, but if you vote you should at least be engaged enough to take the steps to exercise that right. Quit acting like registering to vote is akin to a root canal. Registering is easy. People just have to do it. People also need to take responsibility for this right. If they feel it is important enough to take a basic step to keep up their registration, then that is a sign of good citizenship. When they decide at some point they want to be active in the democratic process again, they can easily choose to re-register. The onus should be on the citizen to exercise as you say" their God given right"

 

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

Why? Why is it up to you or some republicans to judge whether someone is more "American" (re: "active and engaged", whatever that means) than someone else? Just because someone doesn't vote doesn't mean that they aren't "active or engaged", voting doesn't determine that. Some active community activist may be jaded by politicians then out of nowhere they feel the desire to vote for one after ten years. You, nor the GOP, aren't the arbiter of their "engagement". 

Those are your words as to how "American" a person is. Again, this is just hyperbole on your end. Your point about an activist not wanting to vote. That is perfectly fine, that is their right to vote or not to vote. That has nothing to do about their patriotism or even Americanness. When they want to vote though, there is an easy step they must first do in that process, and that is to register. Not a very had task (especially for someone who claims to be an activist and wants to actually reengaged with voting). You act like this is some huge burden and it is not. 

 

3 hours ago, GISguy said:

Have you worked an election and seen how many people vote straight party line and don't actually care about what they're voting for? You act like those who vote are on some pedestal. Work an election and get back to us

many people vote straight party line, they are not engaged. It is sad. We would be better off if people did a better job learning the issues, but fact is that they wont. That still does not change the fact that voting is already easy to do in our country. Registering to vote is not that difficult, and there is a certain responsibility that the individual is responsible for when it comes to societal functions like voting. Keeping up with their registration is that basic task.

 

As JFK once said, "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" He spoke to citizens to engage themselves with making a better country, not just expect everything to be given to them. Anything important takes some modicum of effort. 

16 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

This isn't an instance of things being given to you. It's literally the state taking something away from you. 

Is the state taking away your right to vote? Hardly. 

You can still vote. If your record was purged, you just need to re-register. It is free, and it is easy, and it is the responsible thing to do. 

 

Nothing has been taken away from you. You just need to do your part and keep up your registration. 

 

How is it any different than say moving from Ohio to Georgia and then going down the street to a local polling place in Atlanta and expecting to be able to cast a ballot when you never actually updated your address nor took any other actions besides renting an apartment to show you now live in Georgia. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Is the state taking away your right to vote? Hardly. 

You can still vote. If your record was purged, you just need to re-register. It is free, and it is easy, and it is the responsible thing to do. 

 

Nothing has been taken away from you. You just need to do your part and keep up your registration. 

 

How is it any different than say moving from Ohio to Georgia and then going down the street to a local polling place in Atlanta and expecting to be able to cast a ballot when you never actually updated your address nor took any other actions besides renting an apartment to show you now live in Georgia. 

 

 

 

Because a lot of these people never moved! They registered, skipped one election cycle, and then were removed by the SoS. You don't expect to be removed from the voter rolls for missing one presidential election. It's voter suppression. I know you support voter suppression, but it's really atrocious.

25 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Because a lot of these people never moved! They registered, skipped one election cycle, and then were removed by the SoS. You don't expect to be removed from the voter rolls for missing one presidential election. It's voter suppression. I know you support voter suppression, but it's really atrocious.

I think they skipped more than one election cycle. I believe the standard for removal was 12 years of no voting. That would be 6 election cycles IN A ROW. If you skip 6 cycles in a row, it would not be unreasonable to have your registration purged. In fact, I would argue that it would be considered responsible to purge records where the voter does not vote for 6 cycles in a row. Also, remember, when you want to vote it is not too difficult to re-register when you want to do so. 

23 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

It is not a GOP problem. This is an issue with the Dems too. There are still a significant number of Dems who think Al Gore still won the election in 2000 even though the facts show the Bush did in fact win Florida even after counting the ballots. Stacey Abrams still claims she did not lose the election in Georgia in 2018 (and I assume 2022 too).  There are countless of other Dem candidates or supporters who still support much of this line of thinking. It really is not much different than those who feel Kari Lake is the legitimate governor of Arizona or Trump had the election stolen from him. 

 

It is not just a GOP disease but it is something with politics on the whole. Even down at the state and local levels, people are taking their political ideologies to a level of zealotry where they refuse to accept the peaceful transfer of power and refuse to cooperate with a D or R depending ontheir leanings, even if it is for the common good of all

 

The belief that Al Gore may have won isn't even close to the same thing, since we were talking about a few hundred votes in one state being the difference. It's entirely possible that had Gore chosen to do a full statewide vote and SCOTUS hadn't interjected, he may have indeed won. That's a hell of a lot different than Trump claiming widespread fraud losing to Biden by the same margin across multiple states that he won by in 2016 against Clinton. Furthermore, Al Gore didn't spend years after building an election fraud narrative, taking his case to the courts 60 times without evidence, telling his supporters to commit violence in his name because of it, committing an insurrection attempt or threating to execute military generals based on it. Neither did Stacy Abrams, for that matter. Or the Democratic Party. The equivalency you're trying to make is intellectually insulting, and it promotes the very thing I was just talking about- the increasing disregard of democratic norms to defend a wannabe despot. One of your worst posts to date.

6 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

Why?! If you're registered you should stay registered. Why does it matter how often you vote?

 

If you don't travel internationally once every 5 years should you lose your passport? If you don't drive every six months should you lose your license? 

 

See how silly these arguments are? And if we're such a freedom loving nation why do you even need to register? Why can't you register the day of the election? What are people afraid of? What's the point other than to gatekeep elections from common citizens.

 

Yep, the only reasons anyone should be removed from the voter rolls are: 1. Death, 2. Convicted treason against the country, 3. No longer being an American citizen. That's it. The only reasons to want to remove voters otherwise is to rig the system one way or the other. Republicans here and elsewhere will obfuscate, deflect and gaslight about why it should happen, but the real reason is crystal clear: They're only willing to tolerate the democratic system so long as it benefits them. 

Edited September 28, 20231 yr by jonoh81

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

People voting who are not eligible to vote.  People voting multiple times. 

 

 

Duh. 

 

That doesn't really explain or justify voter purges. 

5 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The belief that Al Gore may have won isn't even close to the same thing, since we were talking about a few hundred votes in one state being the difference. It's entirely possible that had Gore chosen to do a full statewide vote and SCOTUS hadn't interjected, he may have indeed won. That's a hell of a lot different than Trump claiming widespread fraud losing to Biden by the same margin across multiple states that he won by in 2016 against Clinton. Furthermore, Al Gore didn't spend years after building an election fraud narrative, taking his case to the courts 60 times without evidence, telling his supporters to commit violence in his name because of it, committing an insurrection attempt or threating to execute military generals based on it. Neither did Stacy Abrams, for that matter. Or the Democratic Party. The equivalency you're trying to make is intellectually insulting, and it promotes the very thing I was just talking about- the increasing disregard of democratic norms to defend a wannabe despot. One of your worst posts to date.

But it is not. Now, I do not disagree with you that Trump has taken it up to a new level, but he has no shame. However, over the last 20+ years standards have been broken and what was once seen as a political red line has been crossed numerous times without consequence.  The point is, that what was once unheard of, challenging an election, has become the norm for both parties who do not like the results.  While behavior of certain past politicians may not have risen to the level of Trump, their bad behavior made it possible for Trump to exist. it all builds upon each other.  The point is, this is not just a symptom of the Republican party, it is on both sides, but of course true to your character, you refuse to see it, or even acknowledge it.

5 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yep, the only reasons anyone should be removed from the voter rolls are: 1. Death, 2. Convicted treason against the country, 3. No longer being an American citizen. That's it. The only reasons to want to remove voters otherwise is to rig the system one way or the other. Republicans here and elsewhere will obfuscate, deflect and gaslight about why it should happen, but the real reason is crystal clear: They're only willing to tolerate the democratic system so long as it benefits them. 

Periodic purges provide security and integrity to elections. If you have not voted in 20 years, how difficult would it be for a group of individuals to obtain fake documentation to claim impersonate a person. Probably not too difficult.  Clear out the voters who have not voted in a long time and when they are ready to engage again, it is not overly burdensome to re-register. You guys make it sound like registering to vote is akin to getting a root canal. There is minimal effort involved and not overly burdensome.

6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yep, the only reasons anyone should be removed from the voter rolls are: 1. Death, 2. Convicted treason against the country, 3. No longer being an American citizen. That's it. The only reasons to want to remove voters otherwise is to rig the system one way or the other. Republicans here and elsewhere will obfuscate, deflect and gaslight about why it should happen, but the real reason is crystal clear: They're only willing to tolerate the democratic system so long as it benefits them. 

 

So you wouldn't want to remove convicted felons, as most states do?

 

How about moving to, and registering in, another state.

13 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

So you wouldn't want to remove convicted felons, as most states do?

 

How about moving to, and registering in, another state.

Jonoh: I want my state to be better, and here are all the reasons.

E Rocc: you should just move somewhere else.

 

EDIT: I misinterpreted. Thx for heads up, @Brutus_buckeye

 

To answer the question - being convicted of a felony should not remove constitutional rights. While I'm open to voting restrictions while in prison, once released a convicted felon should absolutely have voting rights restored.

 

Moving and registering in another state should be removed from voter roles in previous state. That's why Ohio was part of ERIC, which enabled the state to catch several people who had done just what you described. But LaRose pulled Ohio out of that system. Republican leadership in Ohio hates best practice.

 

9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Periodic purges provide security and integrity to elections. If you have not voted in 20 years, how difficult would it be for a group of individuals to obtain fake documentation to claim impersonate a person. Probably not too difficult.  Clear out the voters who have not voted in a long time and when they are ready to engage again, it is not overly burdensome to re-register. You guys make it sound like registering to vote is akin to getting a root canal. There is minimal effort involved and not overly burdensome.

 

Do you have evidence of widespread and pervasive voter fraud affecting the outcome of an election? 

31 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Jonoh: I want my state to be better, and here are all the reasons.

E Rocc: you should just move somewhere else.

 

I think you mis-interpreted his comment. 

He was asking @jonoh81 his take on if someone should move to another state, city or other part of town, if that person should be required to re-register to vote for moving or they should be continued to be allowed to vote in their prior locale.

1 minute ago, Luke_S said:

 

Do you have evidence of widespread and pervasive voter fraud affecting the outcome of an election? 

that is a strawman argument. 

Do you have any evidence that terrorists are going to board airplanes today and crash them into the Capitol? Do you have any direct evidence there is going to be an earthquake in California today? Do you have direct evidence that you will get into a car accident on your drive to work today?   

You put systems and security in place to prevent this from happening. Just because there will not likely be a terrorist attack today, you still do vigilant screening of all travelers, there may not be a massive earthquake today but we still prepare out buildings to sustain one if it comes, just like you will not likely have a car accident today, you still wear your seat belt and take other precautions to keep you safe.  

 

You do not wait for evidence before reacting. You use best practices to ensure that the system is set up and safe and minimize the risk and preserve integrity. You do not wait for the fraud to actually happen before you take action, that would be stupid and would be far too late, because how do you fix it. If it is foreseeable, you at least can take action now.  To go down the rabbit hole, imagine if Donald Trump was able to get 10 million illegal aliens to vote for him using false identification in order to win the election? what a mess that would be. Clearly, that would be evidence that the election was stolen but it would be far too late to do anything about it at that point. It would be utter chaos. That is why you build a better mousetrap from the start

10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

that is a strawman argument. 

Do you have any evidence that terrorists are going to board airplanes today and crash them into the Capitol? Do you have any direct evidence there is going to be an earthquake in California today? Do you have direct evidence that you will get into a car accident on your drive to work today?

He said 'widespread' and 'pervasive' not 'acute' and 'rare'

11 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

that is a strawman argument. 

Do you have any evidence that terrorists are going to board airplanes today and crash them into the Capitol? Do you have any direct evidence there is going to be an earthquake in California today? Do you have direct evidence that you will get into a car accident on your drive to work today?   

You put systems and security in place to prevent this from happening. Just because there will not likely be a terrorist attack today, you still do vigilant screening of all travelers, there may not be a massive earthquake today but we still prepare out buildings to sustain one if it comes, just like you will not likely have a car accident today, you still wear your seat belt and take other precautions to keep you safe.  

 

You do not wait for evidence before reacting. You use best practices to ensure that the system is set up and safe and minimize the risk and preserve integrity. You do not wait for the fraud to actually happen before you take action, that would be stupid and would be far too late, because how do you fix it. If it is foreseeable, you at least can take action now.  To go down the rabbit hole, imagine if Donald Trump was able to get 10 million illegal aliens to vote for him using false identification in order to win the election? what a mess that would be. Clearly, that would be evidence that the election was stolen but it would be far too late to do anything about it at that point. It would be utter chaos. That is why you build a better mousetrap from the start

 

Yeah... but it's not a strawman argument because there are states with automatic voter registration where we do not see higher rates of voter fraud.

 

So not at all clear that these voter purges should be considered a "best practice".

11 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

So you wouldn't want to remove convicted felons, as most states do?

 

How about moving to, and registering in, another state.

 

No. I don't think felony status should exclude one from voting rights and never understood why it should. The punishment for a felony conviction should be well-deserved prison time, not the loss of constitutional rights. At the very least, felons that have served their time should be able to vote. 

 

Why should moving to another state cause the loss of voting rights? Another state would still be the US, and we don't take away the voting rights of American citizens, such as soldiers, who may live out of the country. Voting rights should be maintained regardless of address. This just gives partisan hacks in political parties a reason to disenfranchise people otherwise.

Edited September 29, 20231 yr by jonoh81

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But it is not. Now, I do not disagree with you that Trump has taken it up to a new level, but he has no shame. However, over the last 20+ years standards have been broken and what was once seen as a political red line has been crossed numerous times without consequence.  The point is, that what was once unheard of, challenging an election, has become the norm for both parties who do not like the results.  While behavior of certain past politicians may not have risen to the level of Trump, their bad behavior made it possible for Trump to exist. it all builds upon each other.  The point is, this is not just a symptom of the Republican party, it is on both sides, but of course true to your character, you refuse to see it, or even acknowledge it.

 

Yes, the standards have been broken... by Republicans. The 2000 election was an unprecedented situation in which Gore had a legitimate argument to contest. He wasn't breaking any standards because he just didn't like the results. Trump was attacking election results *before the 2016 election even happened* and even after he won. Our entire election in 2020 came down to a handful of people in a few states still willing to tell him no, or we would've had a serious crisis. And he will do it again and much worse if he regains the office. And your party is fully on board with that. The GOP absolutely does not care about maintaining American democracy anymore and they will completely destroy it if it means they get to keep power. There is no equivalent on the Democratic side. There's nothing that has ever come close to this in American history. There is no "both sides". This is deflection, and if you were actually serious about protecting democracy, you wouldn't be spending so much time trying to normalize all this by pretending like everyone is doing it. 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Periodic purges provide security and integrity to elections. If you have not voted in 20 years, how difficult would it be for a group of individuals to obtain fake documentation to claim impersonate a person. Probably not too difficult.  Clear out the voters who have not voted in a long time and when they are ready to engage again, it is not overly burdensome to re-register. You guys make it sound like registering to vote is akin to getting a root canal. There is minimal effort involved and not overly burdensome.

 

There is no evidence that purges- other than of those who have died- provide any security or integrity to elections. This is a made up talking point. There is no mandatory voting in the US, so there should be no reason people should be punished if they don't abitrarily vote often enough. You really haven't explained why this should happen, and I don't think you can. 

50 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Why should moving to another state cause the loss of voting rights? Another state would still be the US, and we don't take away the voting rights of American citizens, such as soldiers, who may live out of the country. Voting rights should be maintained regardless of address. This just gives partisan hacks in political parties a reason to disenfranchise people otherwise.

Moving to another state does not take away voting rights. It just means you have to re-register where your domicile is. Would not you think that is a reasonable thing to do? 

There are many practicalities on why you need to re-register after moving.
1) you are still registered at your old precinct so they are expecting you to vote there. Certain issues that apply to that precinct do not apply to your new location

2) If you do not register at your new address and voted there, you could theoretically vote twice because they are still expecting you at your old location. 

3) some people live in multiple locations. College students could vote in a new state where their college is located if they register, some people have multiple homes and are snowbirds in Florida and return to Ohio. If you did not have to register and pick your location, these people could theoretically show up to any election depending on what town they are in and vote. Not really a good idea.

 

Explain to me how registering to vote is overly burdensome to people and that this basic step is something that disenfranchises voters who really want to be engaged but cant be engaged because of this overly burdensome registration process? Explain to me how the benefits of voter registration are outweighed by the overly burdensome process of having to register to vote and update that registration periodically when you move or go dormant?   Outside of crying that a voter purge of records of people who have not voted in over 6 election cycles is wrong, explain to me how disenfranchised they truly are when they can easily re-register in a 3 minute process, if they truly care enough. 

 

43 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There is no evidence that purges- other than of those who have died- provide any security or integrity to elections. This is a made up talking point. There is no mandatory voting in the US, so there should be no reason people should be punished if they don't abitrarily vote often enough. You really haven't explained why this should happen, and I don't think you can. 

And there is no evidence that having to update your voting records when you move, have a change of circumstances is overly burdensome either.  This is the same BS that people were crying about 10 years ago when Voter ID became an issue and how that was going to be the end of democracy, blah blah blah, and how voters will be disenfranchised. The numbers never demonstrated that, and in fact they showed the inverse. Voter ID has become accepted by the majority of people in both parties now. 

 

How are reasonable voter purges of people WHO DO NOT ENGAGE AND VOTE, and cannot be tracked down through reasonable means anything overly burdensome. How does it take away the right to vote, especially when a person can re-register again very easily.

 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

Yeah... but it's not a strawman argument because there are states with automatic voter registration where we do not see higher rates of voter fraud.

 

So not at all clear that these voter purges should be considered a "best practice".

Luke - it is a strawman argument because it does not disenfranchise people. It is about being a citizen and sometimes being a responsible citizen means that the individual actually has to take an affirmative step on their own. 

35 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Luke - it is a strawman argument because it does not disenfranchise people. It is about being a citizen and sometimes being a responsible citizen means that the individual actually has to take an affirmative step on their own. 

 

You're switching your arguments now. The argument I was responding to was arguing that voter purges were necessary for election security/integrity concerns which do not exist. 

53 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

You're switching your arguments now. The argument I was responding to was arguing that voter purges were necessary for election security/integrity concerns which do not exist. 

They are necessary, they are a good thing. It is like pruning the trees and clearing the dead underbrush. You clear that out so the rest of the tree can flourish. When a voter wants to choose to flourish, he or she can choose to take action to do so. Nothing prevents you from voting if your record is purged. this is not a felon who is barred from voting for the rest of their life because of their crimes. The record purge just simply removes your name until you take an affirmative 3 minute step to place it back. Not overly burdensome. It is not something that cost Stacey Abrams the election. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

They are necessary, they are a good thing. It is like pruning the trees and clearing the dead underbrush. You clear that out so the rest of the tree can flourish. When a voter wants to choose to flourish, he or she can choose to take action to do so. Nothing prevents you from voting if your record is purged. this is not a felon who is barred from voting for the rest of their life because of their crimes. The record purge just simply removes your name until you take an affirmative 3 minute step to place it back. Not overly burdensome.

 

By arguing that voting should require some affirmative actions on an individual's part to maintain the ability to vote, aren't you arguing that voting is not a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE ?

We might disagree.

 

I do not understand why having nonvoters on the rolls is problematic for election integrity or how removing nonvoters makes voting/elections "flourish."  (Just as I do not understand how withdrawing the state from the interstate compact that checked for voters voting in multiple states improved election integrity.)

10 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 (Just as I do not understand how withdrawing the state from the interstate compact that checked for voters voting in multiple states improved election integrity.)

 

It's easier to throw out baseless election fraud claims if you can bring up hundreds or thousands of "suspicious" ballots but conveniently can't prove it.

 

It's not actually about election integrity. It's about suppressing turnout and instigating fear into the electorate.