For months since the last presidential election we have seen republicans try to tighten up security measures and democrats and their media pawns claim these new regulations are either undemocratic or racist or both. Basically the left claiming they should be the sole arbiters of free and fair elections. The funny thing is we can look at Democratic primaries for a view of what happens when Dem's are given sole control of elections. Bernie Sanders would be a good person to ask if these primaries are fair and free.
You see the Democratic parties idea of what constitute free and fair elections includes being able to manipulate the outcome, and we are to believe that they only want to put their thumb on the scale when they choosing their own candidates not when they are trying to oust someone they despise.
Yeah, it's just that objecting to "tighten[ing] up security measures" when there's no evidence of fraud to support the changes doesn't mean that Democrats are "claiming they should be the sole arbiters of free and fair elections". It's just not true that "Democratic parties idea of what constitute free and fair elections includes being able to manipulate the outcome".
ReplyDeleteAnd the situation in Arizona? Is that recount fiasco what passes for free and fair in Republican circles?
We could ask Bernie Sanders if he thinks the democratic party manipulates elections Given during the primaries they have the manipulation built into the rules but it is still manipulating the vote to get the outcome they want.
DeleteThe Arizona audit does seem to be taking an awful long time, but they have found almost two hundred cases of inappropriate voting. My question is how many inappropriate votes is okay. Because if they found two hundred how many illegal votes are they missing.
How the Democratic party chooses to organize its own internal primary process to select a candidate for it's presidential ticket is irrelevant to the discussion of laws governing voting in elections. Surely you see that. Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat.
DeleteTrump is claiming massive voter fraud enough to change the results. That's a lie. So far they've found 182 cases of _potential_ voter fraud, only 4 of which have led to charges. Fraudulent votes are not ok, but this few of them isn't nearly enough to overturn any election. The Cyber Ninja fiasco is a circus, not following rules for either an audit or a recount, and is solely in furtherance of The Big Lie.
"its" presidential ticket. Auto-correct is such a pain
DeleteThe democrats primary rules incorporate manipulation and probably cost Bernie the presidency. He was vastly more popular than Hillary but not with party hierarchy. Their primary rules show how far they will go to get their own way.
ReplyDeleteHow many people speed on any given day and how many get a ticket. Election fraud is probably the same if they found 182 how many more are not even on the radar as suspect.
Again, the Democrats could choose their candidate in a smoke-filled room and it'd be nobody's business but their own. Candidates used to be chosen in congressional caucuses, and as late as the 1960s the party candidate hadn't even participated in state primary elections. The entire state-by-state primary election and national convention process is a modern innovation. That Democrats allow non-party members consideration has always puzzled me. The parties' processes are completely unrelated to the rules governing voting. Unrelated in any way.
DeleteThey've been searching for these fabled fraudulent/illegal votes for how long? Through how many recounts and audits? And now through this strange Cyber Ninja circus? And they've managed to at long last found what? Less than a tiny percentage of a hundredth of a percent of the over a million votes cast only 4 of which have led to charges. It's nothing but a circus in furtherance of the Big Lie. There is no massive voter fraud, voter fraud is amazingly rare and doesn't lead to the overturning of election results,
and how many people speed is yet another issue. I'd love to discuss street design and how cars are designed, but these issues, like how the parties' choose their primary candidates, is _Completely Unrelated_ to voter fraud and the rules governing our right to vote.
It has in the past in fact we wouldn't have Obama care without voter fraud. Al Franken became the deciding vote in the senate under questionable circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYour right the parties can choose their candidates any way they choose. I still say that the way you primary is evidence of your idea of free and fair.
Without proper controls and secure balloting there is no such thing as free and fair. It's funny how in almost every election cycle there will be ballots "found" late in the counting that are almost exclusively cast for the democratic candidate.
What? lol "we wouldn't have Obama care without voter fraud"? That wasn't even decided in elections.
DeleteAnd your claim that "in almost every election cycle there will be ballots "found" late in the counting that are almost exclusively cast for the democratic candidate." is something I'd like to see evidence of.
Without Al Franken The Democrats didn't have the votes to ram through the Obama care abomination.
ReplyDeleteHe ran against Norm Coleman in Minnesota and initially Coleman was declared the winner. However they continued looking until they magically found enough ballots for Franken to win.
If the amount of fraud that happens was perpetrated against democrats you can bet the media would be all over that but since they are basically the democratic party's P.R. department they ignore it.
Your tale about Franken ain't backed by actual facts/evidence. That one case, which as I understand it involved the claim that some felons who hadn't had their right to vote restored had their votes counted (a felony that I agree should be investigated and punished, and procedures should be put in place to better ensure felon votes aren't counted), that one case shows that when an election result is in doubt we have methods in place for contesting them. After all that process had taken place Coleman signed off on the results and conceded. No, it's just not true that they "magically found enough ballots for Franken to win" and that was never the claim. Sheesh, that one case? That's your case for rampant Democratic party corruption and further limiting access to the polls? LOL You are determined in your anti-Democratic party prejudice, I can see that, but I'm not sure how further restrictions of our voting rights would've prevented the problem with felons voting in the Franken/Coleman race. Yes there is sometimes fraud, yes it is amazingly rare, and yes they find it, but no it doesn't rise to the point of deciding an election.
DeleteTo credit Franken with passing Obamacare is odd, given that he was only one of 60 votes and the bill had to be sent back to the House before it was passed there and sent to Obama's desk.
Come on, you know how it works 59 votes does not get it beyond a filibuster. Without the 6o votes it's been reasoned that the senate doesn't have the mandate of the people to pass whatever they want without securing support from the other party.
ReplyDelete