January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7

That's only fair. minority citizens should not have to undergo the REAL ID torture. It's too hard.

MAGA…..Remember Ferguson!!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... their-fair

Yet a convicted felon can't legally own a firearm. Maybe we can relax that law as well. Then all those career felons won't have to be bothered buying illegal weapons on the street. Hell they can even vote for the candidates that will make that happen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pa ... ar-AASyubY

You comfy there TLD with this mother effing rat baztard being able to vote? He painted his illegal weapon to look like a toy no less. I'm sure that deception could cause a police officer to hesitate just long enough for this POS to shoot the officer. I have no problem with some convicted felons being allowed to vote. That should be done on a case by case basis taking into account the individual and their criminal record. Violent felons IMO should never be allowed to cast a legal vote.

why so angry?

Why so obtuse?? read the link and explain your dumb ass logic to the family of Benji Martinez...

Who are you mad at?

[cradleandshoot]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

[cradleandshoot]

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7

That's only fair. minority citizens should not have to undergo the REAL ID torture. It's too hard.

MAGA…..Remember Ferguson!!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... their-fair

Yet a convicted felon can't legally own a firearm. Maybe we can relax that law as well. Then all those career felons won't have to be bothered buying illegal weapons on the street. Hell they can even vote for the candidates that will make that happen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pa ... ar-AASyubY

You comfy there TLD with this mother effing rat baztard being able to vote? He painted his illegal weapon to look like a toy no less. I'm sure that deception could cause a police officer to hesitate just long enough for this POS to shoot the officer. I have no problem with some convicted felons being allowed to vote. That should be done on a case by case basis taking into account the individual and their criminal record. Violent felons IMO should never be allowed to cast a legal vote.

why so angry?

Why so obtuse?? read the link and explain your dumb ass logic to the family of Benji Martinez...

Who are you mad at?

Why are you so obtuse? We can play this back and forth game all day long. What would YOU say to the family of Benji Martinez?? Let me guess, who are you mad at??

[Typical Lax Dad]

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7

That's only fair. minority citizens should not have to undergo the REAL ID torture. It's too hard.

MAGA…..Remember Ferguson!!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... their-fair

Yet a convicted felon can't legally own a firearm. Maybe we can relax that law as well. Then all those career felons won't have to be bothered buying illegal weapons on the street. Hell they can even vote for the candidates that will make that happen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pa ... ar-AASyubY

You comfy there TLD with this mother effing rat baztard being able to vote? He painted his illegal weapon to look like a toy no less. I'm sure that deception could cause a police officer to hesitate just long enough for this POS to shoot the officer. I have no problem with some convicted felons being allowed to vote. That should be done on a case by case basis taking into account the individual and their criminal record. Violent felons IMO should never be allowed to cast a legal vote.

why so angry?

Why so obtuse?? read the link and explain your dumb ass logic to the family of Benji Martinez...

Who are you mad at?

Why are you so obtuse? We can play this back and forth game all day long. What would YOU say to the family of Benji Martinez?? Let me guess, who are you mad at??

I am asking you. Are you friends with the family? What is going to be solved by you being mad? Do you have high blood pressure? Just not sure why you are angry….I would tell them that “I am sorry for their loss”…since you asked…..as for voting, if a guy paid his debt to society, let them vote. My guess is the guy that takes the time to go and vote is probably reformed and productive. Guys that aren’t reformed or productive, aren’t voting anyway, old bean.

[cradleandshoot]

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7

That's only fair. minority citizens should not have to undergo the REAL ID torture. It's too hard.

MAGA…..Remember Ferguson!!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... their-fair

Yet a convicted felon can't legally own a firearm. Maybe we can relax that law as well. Then all those career felons won't have to be bothered buying illegal weapons on the street. Hell they can even vote for the candidates that will make that happen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pa ... ar-AASyubY

You comfy there TLD with this mother effing rat baztard being able to vote? He painted his illegal weapon to look like a toy no less. I'm sure that deception could cause a police officer to hesitate just long enough for this POS to shoot the officer. I have no problem with some convicted felons being allowed to vote. That should be done on a case by case basis taking into account the individual and their criminal record. Violent felons IMO should never be allowed to cast a legal vote.

why so angry?

Why so obtuse?? read the link and explain your dumb ass logic to the family of Benji Martinez...

Who are you mad at?

Why are you so obtuse? We can play this back and forth game all day long. What would YOU say to the family of Benji Martinez?? Let me guess, who are you mad at??

I am asking you. Are you friends with the family? What is going to be solved by you being mad? Do you have high blood pressure? Just not sure why you are angry….I would tell them that “I am sorry for their loss”…since you asked…..as for voting, if a guy paid his debt to society, let them vote. My guess is the guy that takes the time to go and vote is probably reformed and productive. Guys that aren’t reformed or productive, aren’t voting anyway, old bean.

So the reformed drunk should be allowed behind the wheel again? How many DWIs does it take before we tell you to go get a bus pass. If convicted VIOLENT felons are still citizens in good standing.. why not allow them to vote from their prison cell? They are citizens after all. They are entitled to the same rights and privileges that all of us who have obeyed the law all of our lives. So let me get this right TLD. A convicted FELON on parole for a conviction for possessing an illegal firearm decides to paint his Mac Daddy like a toy gun. His vehicle has illegal drugs processed for sale on the street. He pops some caps off for one reason or another. The " shot spotter" system warns police of shots fired. Law enforcement identifies a suspect vehicle initiating a pursuit where the driver of the stolen jeep, driving at 80 mph blows through a red light and T bones the vehicle driven by Benji Martinez killing him instantly and leaving the FD the dubious task of extricating his body from the mangled wreck. I'm guessing to assuage Mr MD lax this career criminal, given the fact he is still a citizen, should still have the privilege to vote. That is the right thing to do after all. Maybe he should be given an absentee ballot provided he is not out on bail come election time.

[cradleandshoot]

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7

That's only fair. minority citizens should not have to undergo the REAL ID torture. It's too hard.

MAGA…..Remember Ferguson!!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... their-fair

Yet a convicted felon can't legally own a firearm. Maybe we can relax that law as well. Then all those career felons won't have to be bothered buying illegal weapons on the street. Hell they can even vote for the candidates that will make that happen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pa ... ar-AASyubY

You comfy there TLD with this mother effing rat baztard being able to vote? He painted his illegal weapon to look like a toy no less. I'm sure that deception could cause a police officer to hesitate just long enough for this POS to shoot the officer. I have no problem with some convicted felons being allowed to vote. That should be done on a case by case basis taking into account the individual and their criminal record. Violent felons IMO should never be allowed to cast a legal vote.

why so angry?

Why so obtuse?? read the link and explain your dumb ass logic to the family of Benji Martinez...

Who are you mad at?

Why are you so obtuse? We can play this back and forth game all day long. What would YOU say to the family of Benji Martinez?? Let me guess, who are you mad at??

I am asking you. Are you friends with the family? What is going to be solved by you being mad? Do you have high blood pressure? Just not sure why you are angry….I would tell them that “I am sorry for their loss”…since you asked…..as for voting, if a guy paid his debt to society, let them vote. My guess is the guy that takes the time to go and vote is probably reformed and productive. Guys that aren’t reformed or productive, aren’t voting anyway, old bean.

I don't need to be friends with the family to have empathy with the needless death of their loved one. You on the other hand could give two chits one way or the other. Your only dumb ass response is why am I angry. Maybe you understand why but I'm guessing you never will.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Minority voters disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6
States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.
Voter ID laws are enforced in a discriminatory manner. A Caltech/MIT study found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters.7

That's only fair. minority citizens should not have to undergo the REAL ID torture. It's too hard.

MAGA…..Remember Ferguson!!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... their-fair

Yet a convicted felon can't legally own a firearm. Maybe we can relax that law as well. Then all those career felons won't have to be bothered buying illegal weapons on the street. Hell they can even vote for the candidates that will make that happen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pa ... ar-AASyubY

You comfy there TLD with this mother effing rat baztard being able to vote? He painted his illegal weapon to look like a toy no less. I'm sure that deception could cause a police officer to hesitate just long enough for this POS to shoot the officer. I have no problem with some convicted felons being allowed to vote. That should be done on a case by case basis taking into account the individual and their criminal record. Violent felons IMO should never be allowed to cast a legal vote.

why so angry?

Why so obtuse?? read the link and explain your dumb ass logic to the family of Benji Martinez...

Who are you mad at?

Why are you so obtuse? We can play this back and forth game all day long. What would YOU say to the family of Benji Martinez?? Let me guess, who are you mad at??

I am asking you. Are you friends with the family? What is going to be solved by you being mad? Do you have high blood pressure? Just not sure why you are angry….I would tell them that “I am sorry for their loss”…since you asked…..as for voting, if a guy paid his debt to society, let them vote. My guess is the guy that takes the time to go and vote is probably reformed and productive. Guys that aren’t reformed or productive, aren’t voting anyway, old bean.

I don't need to be friends with the family to have empathy with the needless death of their loved one. You on the other hand could give two chits one way or the other. Your only dumb ass response is why am I angry. Maybe you understand why but I'm guessing you never will.

I don’t understand being “mad”….. https://www.pawuklaw.com/permanent-driv ... uspension/

[MDlaxfan76]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

This doesn't happen to be a big issue for me, I'm simply saying that voting as nothing to with any of the crimes (unless a voting fraud crime! ). Nope, murder has nothing to do with voting, nor does removal of voting privileges (of citizenship) in any way prevent murders...

But sure, one's privilege of driving does NOT stem from being a citizen (non-citizens can as well), one simply has the opportunity to be licensed to drive by virtue of being here, passing various tests, and staying in good standing with one's performance driving. One can lose that privilege, not because they committed some non-driving related crime, but rather because they violated laws related to driving, are deemed a danger to others as a driver by a court.

But our society has previously used criminalization of various behaviors in order to suppress the number of eligible voters of specific sorts. This was an express part of Jim Crow black voter suppression, and it's long been a way to suppress the voting rights of poor folks, much akin to poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and literacy requirements have had the same purpose.

Look, I'm simply not afraid of letting everyone vote.
Win the debates on the merits, be rewarded with the confidence and votes of the voters.
There's another election around the corner.

That is, as long we retain real democracy.

[cradleandshoot]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

This doesn't happen to be a big issue for me, I'm simply saying that voting as nothing to with any of the crimes (unless a voting fraud crime! ). Nope, murder has nothing to do with voting, nor does removal of voting privileges (of citizenship) in any way prevent murders...

But sure, one's privilege of driving does NOT stem from being a citizen (non-citizens can as well), one simply has the opportunity to be licensed to drive by virtue of being here, passing various tests, and staying in good standing with one's performance driving. One can lose that privilege, not because they committed some non-driving related crime, but rather because they violated laws related to driving, are deemed a danger to others as a driver by a court.

But our society has previously used criminalization of various behaviors in order to suppress the number of eligible voters of specific sorts. This was an express part of Jim Crow black voter suppression, and it's long been a way to suppress the voting rights of poor folks, much akin to poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and literacy requirements have had the same purpose.

Look, I'm simply not afraid of letting everyone vote.
Win the debates on the merits, be rewarded with the confidence and votes of the voters.
There's another election around the corner.

That is, as long we retain real democracy.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. You become a violent convicted felon you lose your right to vote. Should these people, since they are still citizens be allowed to vote while still in prison serving their sentence? How many DWIs does it take before you deny a person the privilege of driving a car? I am all for a possible road to being allowed to vote for felons who prove they are worthy by having become productive members of society. You need to prove it, it should not just be handed to you. Please don't keep bringing up the Jim Crow horsebleep. That is not in any way what I am talking about and you know it. I'm not afraid of letting them vote, my opinion is that their criminal behavior is reason to forfeit that right of citizenship until they have proved themselves worthy of regaining that privilege. The same is true why you just don't hand a person convicted of DWI their drivers license back to them with a pat on the back.

[NattyBohChamps04]

So completing their prison sentence isn't paying their debt to society? We have to punish them further?

[MDlaxfan76]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

This doesn't happen to be a big issue for me, I'm simply saying that voting as nothing to with any of the crimes (unless a voting fraud crime! ). Nope, murder has nothing to do with voting, nor does removal of voting privileges (of citizenship) in any way prevent murders...

But sure, one's privilege of driving does NOT stem from being a citizen (non-citizens can as well), one simply has the opportunity to be licensed to drive by virtue of being here, passing various tests, and staying in good standing with one's performance driving. One can lose that privilege, not because they committed some non-driving related crime, but rather because they violated laws related to driving, are deemed a danger to others as a driver by a court.

But our society has previously used criminalization of various behaviors in order to suppress the number of eligible voters of specific sorts. This was an express part of Jim Crow black voter suppression, and it's long been a way to suppress the voting rights of poor folks, much akin to poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and literacy requirements have had the same purpose.

Look, I'm simply not afraid of letting everyone vote.
Win the debates on the merits, be rewarded with the confidence and votes of the voters.
There's another election around the corner.

That is, as long we retain real democracy.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. You become a violent convicted felon you lose your right to vote. Should these people, since they are still citizens be allowed to vote while still in prison serving their sentence? How many DWIs does it take before you deny a person the privilege of driving a car? I am all for a possible road to being allowed to vote for felons who prove they are worthy by having become productive members of society. You need to prove it, it should not just be handed to you. Please don't keep bringing up the Jim Crow horsebleep. That is not in any way what I am talking about and you know it. I'm not afraid of letting them vote, my opinion is that their criminal behavior is reason to forfeit that right of citizenship until they have proved themselves worthy of regaining that privilege. The same is true why you just don't hand a person convicted of DWI their drivers license back to them with a pat on the back.

Again, this not the hill I'd die on, but you have drawn no relationship between voting and the violent offense, or any other felony, with voting. None.

You want to punish or prevent crimes? That's the justification for incarceration.

You want to punish crimes in other ways, nothing to do with prevention?
OK, I get that motivation.

We just disagree.

[cradleandshoot]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

This doesn't happen to be a big issue for me, I'm simply saying that voting as nothing to with any of the crimes (unless a voting fraud crime! ). Nope, murder has nothing to do with voting, nor does removal of voting privileges (of citizenship) in any way prevent murders...

But sure, one's privilege of driving does NOT stem from being a citizen (non-citizens can as well), one simply has the opportunity to be licensed to drive by virtue of being here, passing various tests, and staying in good standing with one's performance driving. One can lose that privilege, not because they committed some non-driving related crime, but rather because they violated laws related to driving, are deemed a danger to others as a driver by a court.

But our society has previously used criminalization of various behaviors in order to suppress the number of eligible voters of specific sorts. This was an express part of Jim Crow black voter suppression, and it's long been a way to suppress the voting rights of poor folks, much akin to poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and literacy requirements have had the same purpose.

Look, I'm simply not afraid of letting everyone vote.
Win the debates on the merits, be rewarded with the confidence and votes of the voters.
There's another election around the corner.

That is, as long we retain real democracy.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. You become a violent convicted felon you lose your right to vote. Should these people, since they are still citizens be allowed to vote while still in prison serving their sentence? How many DWIs does it take before you deny a person the privilege of driving a car? I am all for a possible road to being allowed to vote for felons who prove they are worthy by having become productive members of society. You need to prove it, it should not just be handed to you. Please don't keep bringing up the Jim Crow horsebleep. That is not in any way what I am talking about and you know it. I'm not afraid of letting them vote, my opinion is that their criminal behavior is reason to forfeit that right of citizenship until they have proved themselves worthy of regaining that privilege. The same is true why you just don't hand a person convicted of DWI their drivers license back to them with a pat on the back.

Again, this not the hill I'd die on, but you have drawn no relationship between voting and the violent offense, or any other felony, with voting. None.

You want to punish or prevent crimes? That's the justification for incarceration.

You want to punish crimes in other ways, nothing to do with prevention?
OK, I get that motivation.

We just disagree.

It may not be a hill I would want to die on. I am perfectly comfortable with not allowing career violent felons to vote. In many cases their actions took away the opportunity for a fellow human being to live their lives and vote. That little fact seems to be overlooked if it even matters at all. FTR, how do you "prevent" career criminals from being criminals? A life of crime is all they have ever known. A 9 to 5 job just never floated a career criminals boat. Is that not why they chose a life of crime in the first place? It sure beats punching a time clock everyday.

[MDlaxfan76]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

This doesn't happen to be a big issue for me, I'm simply saying that voting as nothing to with any of the crimes (unless a voting fraud crime! ). Nope, murder has nothing to do with voting, nor does removal of voting privileges (of citizenship) in any way prevent murders...

But sure, one's privilege of driving does NOT stem from being a citizen (non-citizens can as well), one simply has the opportunity to be licensed to drive by virtue of being here, passing various tests, and staying in good standing with one's performance driving. One can lose that privilege, not because they committed some non-driving related crime, but rather because they violated laws related to driving, are deemed a danger to others as a driver by a court.

But our society has previously used criminalization of various behaviors in order to suppress the number of eligible voters of specific sorts. This was an express part of Jim Crow black voter suppression, and it's long been a way to suppress the voting rights of poor folks, much akin to poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and literacy requirements have had the same purpose.

Look, I'm simply not afraid of letting everyone vote.
Win the debates on the merits, be rewarded with the confidence and votes of the voters.
There's another election around the corner.

That is, as long we retain real democracy.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. You become a violent convicted felon you lose your right to vote. Should these people, since they are still citizens be allowed to vote while still in prison serving their sentence? How many DWIs does it take before you deny a person the privilege of driving a car? I am all for a possible road to being allowed to vote for felons who prove they are worthy by having become productive members of society. You need to prove it, it should not just be handed to you. Please don't keep bringing up the Jim Crow horsebleep. That is not in any way what I am talking about and you know it. I'm not afraid of letting them vote, my opinion is that their criminal behavior is reason to forfeit that right of citizenship until they have proved themselves worthy of regaining that privilege. The same is true why you just don't hand a person convicted of DWI their drivers license back to them with a pat on the back.

Again, this not the hill I'd die on, but you have drawn no relationship between voting and the violent offense, or any other felony, with voting. None.

You want to punish or prevent crimes? That's the justification for incarceration.

You want to punish crimes in other ways, nothing to do with prevention?
OK, I get that motivation.

We just disagree.

It may not be a hill I would want to die on. I am perfectly comfortable with not allowing career violent felons to vote. In many cases their actions took away the opportunity for a fellow human being to live their lives and vote. That little fact seems to be overlooked if it even matters at all. FTR, how do you "prevent" career criminals from being criminals? A life of crime is all they have ever known. A 9 to 5 job just never floated a career criminals boat. Is that not why they chose a life of crime in the first place? It sure beats punching a time clock everyday.

I'm not a criminologist nor a psychologist nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so my best guess would be that their perception of risk/reward, and or psychopathy in the case of those les rational, favors their decisions to commit whatever crimes they do. Pretty sure those folks aren't likely voters...those who do go through a rehabilitative process and are sincerely re-entering society would be far more likely than those 'career criminals' to be interested in engaging in full civil society...including voting.

[jhu72]

Fake Arizona and Michigan election documents presented to the National Archive.

[cradleandshoot]

Lying ? ....the basis for stop the steal is election fraud in key swing states where the election rules were changed due to the covid emerg -- those are the states to which the Congress members objected.

And now we've arrived, again, at Kismet's question----that you're avoiding:

If the Republicans in those key swing States claim the ballots in those States were illegitimate, explain why the Republican "winners" in those States took their seats, without hesitation?

Which members of Congress objected to certifying the electoral votes from their home state ?

Still avoiding the question.....this time pretending that you don't understand the question. Neat-o.

Questions are hard, I'm not unsympathetic.

Show us where I said the election was "stolen" -- you are demanding that I defend something I did not say.

My objection is to making permanent the last minute temporary covid emergency rules used in 2020.
imho -- they increase the opportunity for fraud, undermined public confidence in the outcome & enabled a big lie like stop the steal;

I prefer reverting to the 2018 rules. Were results from 2018 & before illegitimate ?
I do not reply to questions that are not applicable & a diversion.

But why, if there's no actual basis to not have public confidence other than the LIE from those upset they lost? Remember, it's a LIE. Not fraud.

The issue isn't that there was any fraud, nor any actual "opportunity for fraud" (there isn't, that too is a LIE), the issue was that they made it easier to cast a legitimate, traceable, verifiable vote from legitimate voters...that's the only actual issue.

Everything else is made up by those upset to have lost and that BS, the LIE, is further being used by those whose only interest is power and who think they can't win if all legitimate voters vote. It's a very old story.

And you're indeed also "lying" if you claim that what GOP legislatures are doing is just "reverting to the 2018 rules."...nope, they've making it harder to vote, wherever they can, than in 2018. Pretty sure you know that.

Want to make elections even more secure than what GOP officials said was the most secure US election ever held? Make sure all voting has a paper trail, all voting is traceable. Have large penalties for intentional fraud.

Want to increase "public confidence"?
Also make a law against election fraud claims that are known to be slanderous, known to be untrue.
Punish the liars.

Most of the new voter laws deal with identification. They may be a roll back some of 2020's situational rules, again unauthorized by the Constitution. However, Georgia will have ballot drop boxes again. Now, if you're going to throw out minorities not being able to get an I.D., well that's just plain insulting to them. Stop being so paternal with everyone else's children.

As to your last point, having the government jail a citizen for speech doesn't exactly instill "public confidence". Maybe you meant "instill fear of my own government".

The US Constitution does not make any mention of voting procedures and thus those rules are delegated to the individual states.

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older) as the Constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... lauses/750

No idea where you get the idea that changes implemented by the states are somehow unconstitutional. SCOTUS ruled in February against challenges to these laws in five states challenged by GOP.

None of the abridgements you mention say anything about convicted felons, especially violent felons with a long history of violent crime. Common sense and good judgement would say that concerning the vast majority of career violent felons that they lose forever the right to vote. They have a consolation prize, finding and purchasing an illegal firearm is still a piece of cake.

Are felons citizens?
I understand why it's distasteful to have criminals be able to vote, but they're still citizens.
Yes, even. more distasteful if a violent felon, even more so if a serially violent felon, a "career felon".
But still a citizen.

Are we worried that they will vote to do away with jail time for murder and be successful? I'm not.

We incarcerate, as felons, a whole lot of people who are involved with drug related crimes, very, very disproportionately poor people, also very disproportionately people of color...indeed, Jim Crow laws purposely incarcerated blacks in order to eliminate them from the voting rolls.

Old story
Note, I said that people who knowingly lie, fraudulently, slanderously lie about elections should be convicted and do time...I did NOT say they should lose their citizenship, their right to vote...as distasteful as it is to me that any of these a-holes have a right to vote.

Where we do we stop with creating felony laws that take away voting?

Convicted VIOLENT felons also can't legally purchase a firearm. Since you are arguing they are still citizens and should have the right to vote, why should they be denied the right to own a firearm? I'm am talking about convicted VIOLENT felons. Especially the hardcore career criminals. I think denying them the right to vote is a fair consequence. Maybe it makes sense to allow them after a period of time with no criminal behavior to earn back that right.

Prevention of crime is a reasonable "consequence". Incarceration, conditions of parole, no access to the tools of the prior crimes...all related to prevention. Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes.

"Voting has nothing to do with the crime or risk of further crimes."

How far back are you going to move the goalpost?? I don't have a "right" to a drivers license because i am a citizen. My drivers license is a privilege. I get convicted of drunk driving my drivers license gets yanked. Your a convicted violent felon, guess what, your right to vote should be yanked as well. You could consider that right to vote a privilege just like your drivers license. If you can't play by the rules of a civilized society, you get to observe the game from the sidelines. Look at the bright side MD, most convicted violent felons have no problem at all finding an illegal weapon.

This doesn't happen to be a big issue for me, I'm simply saying that voting as nothing to with any of the crimes (unless a voting fraud crime! ). Nope, murder has nothing to do with voting, nor does removal of voting privileges (of citizenship) in any way prevent murders...

But sure, one's privilege of driving does NOT stem from being a citizen (non-citizens can as well), one simply has the opportunity to be licensed to drive by virtue of being here, passing various tests, and staying in good standing with one's performance driving. One can lose that privilege, not because they committed some non-driving related crime, but rather because they violated laws related to driving, are deemed a danger to others as a driver by a court.

But our society has previously used criminalization of various behaviors in order to suppress the number of eligible voters of specific sorts. This was an express part of Jim Crow black voter suppression, and it's long been a way to suppress the voting rights of poor folks, much akin to poll taxes, property ownership requirements, and literacy requirements have had the same purpose.

Look, I'm simply not afraid of letting everyone vote.
Win the debates on the merits, be rewarded with the confidence and votes of the voters.
There's another election around the corner.

That is, as long we retain real democracy.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. You become a violent convicted felon you lose your right to vote. Should these people, since they are still citizens be allowed to vote while still in prison serving their sentence? How many DWIs does it take before you deny a person the privilege of driving a car? I am all for a possible road to being allowed to vote for felons who prove they are worthy by having become productive members of society. You need to prove it, it should not just be handed to you. Please don't keep bringing up the Jim Crow horsebleep. That is not in any way what I am talking about and you know it. I'm not afraid of letting them vote, my opinion is that their criminal behavior is reason to forfeit that right of citizenship until they have proved themselves worthy of regaining that privilege. The same is true why you just don't hand a person convicted of DWI their drivers license back to them with a pat on the back.

Again, this not the hill I'd die on, but you have drawn no relationship between voting and the violent offense, or any other felony, with voting. None.

You want to punish or prevent crimes? That's the justification for incarceration.

You want to punish crimes in other ways, nothing to do with prevention?
OK, I get that motivation.

We just disagree.

It may not be a hill I would want to die on. I am perfectly comfortable with not allowing career violent felons to vote. In many cases their actions took away the opportunity for a fellow human being to live their lives and vote. That little fact seems to be overlooked if it even matters at all. FTR, how do you "prevent" career criminals from being criminals? A life of crime is all they have ever known. A 9 to 5 job just never floated a career criminals boat. Is that not why they chose a life of crime in the first place? It sure beats punching a time clock everyday.

I'm not a criminologist nor a psychologist nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so my best guess would be that their perception of risk/reward, and or psychopathy in the case of those les rational, favors their decisions to commit whatever crimes they do. Pretty sure those folks aren't likely voters...those who do go through a rehabilitative process and are sincerely re-entering society would be far more likely than those 'career criminals' to be interested in engaging in full civil society...including voting.

That is not the case with career VIOLENT felons. Many have not spent the majority of their lives behind bars for singing too loud in the church choir on Sunday. IMO when you have spent multiple stints in prison for multiple violent crimes the possibility of rehabilitating an incorrigible criminal is a ship that sailed a very long time ago. In my world these folks should be the poster children for defining life in prison. Life without the possibility of parole is music to my ears. Un less your willing to extend their rights as citizens to vote from their jail cell they can rot and die in that little cubicle of their own making. I'm all good with that.

[tech37]

Questions About the FBI's Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media
The FBI has been manufacturing and directing terror plots and criminal rings for decades. But now, reverence for security state agencies reigns.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questi ... is-role-in

[CU88]

Fake Arizona and Michigan election documents presented to the National Archive.

so funny how the r's here dont care about election fraud...


January 11, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson

The United States came perilously close to losing its democracy in 2020, when an incumbent president refused to accept the results of an election he lost and worked with supporters to declare himself the winner and remain in power.

We are learning more about how that process happened.

Yesterday, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol revealed that it has been looking at attempts to overturn the election not just at the national level but also at the state level. It has gathered thousands of records and interviewed a number of witnesses to see what Trump and his loyalists did to overturn the 2020 election in the four crucial states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

In those states, officials generally tried to ignore the pressure from Trump and his loyalists to overturn the election. In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, was uncomfortable enough with a call from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham on the subject that he recorded a call in which Trump urged him to “find” the votes Trump needed to win the state.

In Pennsylvania, right-wing Republican Representative Scott Perry tried to throw out Pennsylvania’s votes for Biden and to replace Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen (who took over when Attorney General William Barr resigned on December 23) with Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department lawyer who promised to challenge the election results.

But it turns out there was more. We knew that Trump supporters in Wisconsin had submitted fake election certificates to the National Archivist, but yesterday, public records requests by Politico revealed that Trump loyalists in Michigan and Arizona also submitted false certificates to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) declaring Trump the winner of Michigan’s and Arizona’s electoral votes. In Arizona, they actually affixed the state seal to their papers. NARA rejected the false certificates and alerted the secretaries of state. (Shout-out here to the NARA archivists and librarians, who are scrupulous in their roles as the keepers of our national history.)

Today, the committee issued more subpoenas, this time for documents and testimony from Andy Surabian, Arthur Schwartz, and Ross Worthington. Surabian and Schwartz were strategists communicating with Donald Trump, Jr., and Kimberly Guilfoyle about the rally on the Ellipse on January 6 before the crowd broke into the Capitol. Worthington helped to write the speech Trump gave at the rally.

The committee today also debunked a story circulating on right-wing media that government agencies rather than Trump loyalists were behind the January 6 insurrection. Arizona resident Ray Epps was captured on video in Washington on January 5 and 6, and Trump allies, including Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have argued that he was a government agent trying to entrap Trump supporters. The committee says that it interviewed Epps and that he had told the members “he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency.”

“Sorry crazies, it ain’t true,” committee member Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) tweeted.

As the attack on our country has become clearer, the determination to restore our democracy has gained momentum.

Today, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took to the road to champion voting rights. They went to the district of the late Representative John Lewis, the Georgia congressman for whom one of the voting rights bills before the Senate is named.

Lewis was beaten by mobs and arrested 24 times in his quest to regain the vote for Black Americans. On March 7, 1965, as Lewis and 600 marchers hoping to register African American voters in Alabama stopped to pray at the end of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, named for a senator at the turn of the last century who was a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, mounted police troopers charged the marchers, beating them with clubs and bullwhips. They fractured Lewis’s skull.

The attacks on the Selma marchers prompted President Lyndon Johnson to call for federal legislation defending Americans’ right to vote. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965. The VRA became such a fundamental part of our system that Congress repeatedly reauthorized it, by large margins, as recently as 2006.

But in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Supreme Court gutted the provision of the law requiring that states with histories of voter discrimination get approval from the Department of Justice before they changed their voting laws. Immediately, legislatures in those states, now dominated by Republicans, began to pass measures to suppress the vote. Now, in the wake of the 2020 election, Republican-dominated states have increased the rate of voter suppression, and on July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court permitted such suppression with the Brnovich v. DNC decision.

Speaking in Lewis’s Atlanta district, Biden called out the people behind the events of January 6 as “forces that attempted a coup—a coup against the legally expressed will of the American people—by sowing doubt, inventing charges of fraud, and seeking to steal the 2020 election from the people.”

“They want chaos to reign,” he said. “We want the people to rule.”

After Selma, “Democrats, Republicans, and independents worked to pass the historic…voting rights legislation,” Biden said. He reminded his audience that Congress repeatedly reauthorized the VRA, most recently in 2006 with a vote of 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate.

Sixteen Republican senators who voted to reauthorize the VRA are still in the Senate, now united against the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that restores the protections the Shelby v. Holder decision stripped from the VRA. Republicans also oppose the Freedom to Vote Act, hammered out by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and a team of other Democrats and Independent Angus King of Maine, which would make it easier to register and to vote, stop partisan gerrymandering, and prohibit the partisan changes Republican-dominated state legislatures have made to guarantee their states go Republican in the future.

Biden called Republican senators out. “Not a single Republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect America’s right to vote,” he said. “Not one.”

Biden called for rebuilding our democracy and for passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. And he came out for a reform of the filibuster to enable the Democrats to get the bills to the Senate floor for debate, a step Republicans have been obstructing. With states able to pass voting restrictions with simple majorities, he pointed out, “the United States Senate should be able to protect voting by a simple majority.”

The next few days will mark a turning point in this nation’s history, Biden said. “Will we choose democracy over autocracy…?”

“I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered?”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says Republicans have until Monday, January 17, the holiday celebrating the birth of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., to drop their opposition to a debate and a vote on the measure. If they refuse, the Senate will begin to debate changing the rules of the filibuster.

Voting rights journalist Ari Berman noted that even as Biden was speaking, a state court in North Carolina upheld redistricting maps that are so extreme they would give Republicans 71–78% of the seats in a state Trump won with just 49.9% of the vote. This, Berman notes, “is exactly the kind of partisan & racial gerrymandering [the] Freedom to Vote Act would block[.]”

[Kismet]

National Archives dropped a big one

https://www.americanoversight.org/ameri ... p-electors

"American Oversight has obtained copies of phony electoral vote certificates from seven states that were submitted to Congress as part of the failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election."

NOTE: While the format of certificates of ascertainment vary by state, these fake documents were clearly made from one template. This is one of the reasons NARA was suspicious and followed up

So to get this get this straight. In three states, folks who were so concerned about alleged fraudulent mail-in ballots that they then created their own fraudulent electoral votes and mailed them to the National Archives. Right?

Who organized this? Inquiring minds want to know

Also interesting to note as Cradle beats his gums about felons being able to vote that the DOPUS-supported GOP candidate for special House election in Florida this week failed to report his criminal record on his candidate form. He lost the election by 59% (by 33,000 of 59,000 votes cast) and has refused to concede. A real Einstein.

[MDlaxfan76]

National Archives dropped a big one

https://www.americanoversight.org/ameri ... p-electors

"American Oversight has obtained copies of phony electoral vote certificates from seven states that were submitted to Congress as part of the failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election."

amazing

[seacoaster]

National Archives dropped a big one

https://www.americanoversight.org/ameri ... p-electors

"American Oversight has obtained copies of phony electoral vote certificates from seven states that were submitted to Congress as part of the failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election."

amazing

Agreed; amazing, but not surprising. Talk about fraudulent voting.