2) One of the reasons that democracy was able to survive 2020 was that there were Republicans like Richer who refused to go along with "If Trump says two plus two is five it's five." The Trumpists are working hard to make sure they're all purged by 2024. What happens then?
The gaslighting will continue until the morale collapses.
No observers of elections, most notably the post-2000 Carter Baker report writers, defend the integrity of the American elections. They are considered a worldwide joke and have been since Daley and LBJ stuffed the ballot boxes of Chicago and Houston for JFK.
For glib propagandists from coastal inc. to act like the coercion, chain of custody violations, harvesting, pay for ballot, lack of audit trail, ID and verification issues, and various other flaws in our absentee ballot system are not a far worse problem for democracy than Trump's Queens bred vulgarity is just sad and dishonest.
The same writers who have no problem exposing billions in PPP fraud in a system with extensive kyc, aml procedures, 2 factor authentication and real ID, somehow turn mute with the thought a no ID, live ballot, zero chain of custody system could be hacked with billions in unregulated funds flowing into elections in
Here is the thing. Perhaps the lack of interest by the coastal navel gazers in ballot integrity would be credible IF they hadn't spent 4 years lapping up the Russia collusion hoax, Kavanaugh pulling the train, Quid pro Joe Ukraine corruption ( with gas tycoon turned artist Hunter).
But hey, all your efforts did rid us of those mean tweets and get us massive inflation, dead marines and hundreds of hostages in Afghanistan, Covid monomania, and an armed capitol helmed by a dementia patient. So there's that to tell your grandchildren.
Trump's stolen-election gaslighting is truly deplorable. Although I voted for Trump, MAGA friends accused me of succumbing to Stockholm syndrome when I told them I've seen no proof that enough fraudulent votes were tallied in any state carried by Biden to have changed the outcome there, even if all of them were cast for him, let alone proof that the net effect of fraudulent voting put Biden over the top. Indeed, proving the latter would be well-nigh impossible. The occurrence of vote fraud could be proved in various ways -- e.g., by showing that people came to polling places after others had voted in their names and were allowed to vote after producing proof of ID, or that more mail ballots were tallied than distributed. But determining how such detected fraudulent voting affected an outcome would be another matter; it would require ascertaining who each fraudulent vote was cast for, which would surely be infeasible.
One of the perverse consequences of Trump's gaslighting is that it distracts attention from bona fide election-integrity issues, concerning which I'd like to raise a couple of questions:
If, in a two-party system, Party A persistently espouses measures tending to minimize opportunity for vote fraud, vote buying, improper influence, voting by non-citizens, etc. (voter ID requirements; restrictions on ballot harvesting; purging the registration rolls of dead voters, names with fake addresses or P.O. box numbers, and names of people who are registered to vote in multiple states; distributing mail ballots only to people who request them; requiring mail ballots to be enclosed in signed "security" envelopes marked with the last four digits of the voter's SSN, checking the numbers, and comparing the signatures with signatures on driver's licenses or other documents on record; keeping vote drop-boxes under continual surveillance while they are unlocked; etc.) and Party B persistently opposes such measures would it not be reasonable to assume that the leaders of both parties believe that, to the extent it occurs, such illicit practices will generally be of more benefit to Party B's candidates?
And would it not also be reasonable to assume that this implicit cross-party consensus is correct?
1) Admirable guy.
2) One of the reasons that democracy was able to survive 2020 was that there were Republicans like Richer who refused to go along with "If Trump says two plus two is five it's five." The Trumpists are working hard to make sure they're all purged by 2024. What happens then?
The gaslighting will continue until the morale collapses.
No observers of elections, most notably the post-2000 Carter Baker report writers, defend the integrity of the American elections. They are considered a worldwide joke and have been since Daley and LBJ stuffed the ballot boxes of Chicago and Houston for JFK.
For glib propagandists from coastal inc. to act like the coercion, chain of custody violations, harvesting, pay for ballot, lack of audit trail, ID and verification issues, and various other flaws in our absentee ballot system are not a far worse problem for democracy than Trump's Queens bred vulgarity is just sad and dishonest.
The same writers who have no problem exposing billions in PPP fraud in a system with extensive kyc, aml procedures, 2 factor authentication and real ID, somehow turn mute with the thought a no ID, live ballot, zero chain of custody system could be hacked with billions in unregulated funds flowing into elections in
Here is the thing. Perhaps the lack of interest by the coastal navel gazers in ballot integrity would be credible IF they hadn't spent 4 years lapping up the Russia collusion hoax, Kavanaugh pulling the train, Quid pro Joe Ukraine corruption ( with gas tycoon turned artist Hunter).
But hey, all your efforts did rid us of those mean tweets and get us massive inflation, dead marines and hundreds of hostages in Afghanistan, Covid monomania, and an armed capitol helmed by a dementia patient. So there's that to tell your grandchildren.
Just another well-written, “reasonable,” attempt at gaslighting the public about the 2020 election. Please save your breath.
Trump's stolen-election gaslighting is truly deplorable. Although I voted for Trump, MAGA friends accused me of succumbing to Stockholm syndrome when I told them I've seen no proof that enough fraudulent votes were tallied in any state carried by Biden to have changed the outcome there, even if all of them were cast for him, let alone proof that the net effect of fraudulent voting put Biden over the top. Indeed, proving the latter would be well-nigh impossible. The occurrence of vote fraud could be proved in various ways -- e.g., by showing that people came to polling places after others had voted in their names and were allowed to vote after producing proof of ID, or that more mail ballots were tallied than distributed. But determining how such detected fraudulent voting affected an outcome would be another matter; it would require ascertaining who each fraudulent vote was cast for, which would surely be infeasible.
One of the perverse consequences of Trump's gaslighting is that it distracts attention from bona fide election-integrity issues, concerning which I'd like to raise a couple of questions:
If, in a two-party system, Party A persistently espouses measures tending to minimize opportunity for vote fraud, vote buying, improper influence, voting by non-citizens, etc. (voter ID requirements; restrictions on ballot harvesting; purging the registration rolls of dead voters, names with fake addresses or P.O. box numbers, and names of people who are registered to vote in multiple states; distributing mail ballots only to people who request them; requiring mail ballots to be enclosed in signed "security" envelopes marked with the last four digits of the voter's SSN, checking the numbers, and comparing the signatures with signatures on driver's licenses or other documents on record; keeping vote drop-boxes under continual surveillance while they are unlocked; etc.) and Party B persistently opposes such measures would it not be reasonable to assume that the leaders of both parties believe that, to the extent it occurs, such illicit practices will generally be of more benefit to Party B's candidates?
And would it not also be reasonable to assume that this implicit cross-party consensus is correct?
"his libertarian commitment to LGBT equality".
Any specifics on the meaning of "LGBT equality"?
Or is it "bigotry" to seek such specifics?