That is such a purposely flawed statement that it is effectively a pure lie even if some of those beats are somewhat true.
Trump has been claiming election fraud since 2016. He claimed he got more votes than Clinton and that three million people voted illegally in California which is why he lost the popular vote.
The only things claimed illegitimate by anyone with any power in the left were either "it isn't fair that the popular vote doesn't matter", "we shouldn't disenfranchise voters as the GOP keeps trying to do in the name of 'election security'" or "certain actors illegally acted around the 2016 election".
There is a world of difference between that last one (the closest to illegitimate) and an actual claim of fraud.
If that isn't a sustained effort to paint the 2016 election as illegitimate I don't know what is.
How many people got arrested as part of that bogus investigation again?
IIRC Trump also fired multiple people to get the investigation to end. Literally played the Nixon playbook and it was all fake... Sure.
"Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts." [0]
Now I'm sure that is an out of context tweet and she probably didn't literally mean "Our elections [were] hijacked", but that would get Trump booted from Twitter.
It isn't a serious argument to say that Trump is bad because his opponents can deduce he means to do secret evil so it is OK to out-of-context quote him or purposefully choose the least charitable interpretation but Pelosi can say that and get the opposite treatment. The current situation is not that unusual for losers of a US presidential elections.
[0] https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?...
Are you saying the FBI is faking Russian interference?
Or do you have problems understanding the context of the issue at hand?
> but that would get Trump booted from Twitter
Trump has called for and praised violence for five years now. He only got banned after fanning the flames during an invasion of the capitol building. (He literally says stay peaceful but not even anything resembling leave until much later in the day)
> It isn't a serious argument to say that Trump is bad because his opponents can deduce he means to do secret evil so it is OK to out-of-context quote him
You don't have to out-of-context quote him.
"We love you. You are all special" while talking directly to those who have invaded the Capitol. That isn't out of context at all. It is exactly what he said and there is no alternative interpretation.
> Pelosi can say that and get the opposite treatment
Do I need to link all of the times where Trump repeatedly said he only lost the popular vote because of fraud. It wasn't a vague statement but a direct one that was repeatedly stated.
> The current situation is not that unusual for losers of a US presidential elections.
No president has waited more than a day to conceded in the modern era. Unless you count Florida where there was odd things going on. Even then it was over once the Supreme Court ruled on it.
Clinton was called out for not conceding the night of the election even though she did first thing in the morning.
These actions are not normal. And I am not even talking about yesterday. Way before that we were way away from normal.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-f...
Whereas Trump just pulled his 'electoral fraud' claims from a hat and his lawyer got laughed out of court.
Looking at any half-decent estimates of the size of those effects will show that you're drawing a false equivalence. There simply is no quantitative argument in support of voter ID requirements, because the kind of fraud they defend against is already practically non-existent and definitely not prevalent enough to sway the outcome of elections.
Analyzing voter ID as a voter suppression technique shows it easily has more harmful impact on election integrity than its notional benefits of preventing the kind of fraud that doesn't really happen to begin with. And this is why any calls for the institution of voter ID requirements in the US should not be taken at face value.
Your comment would have made a much stronger argument if you hadn't tossed in such an obvious, tired and deeply flawed talking point.
I'd honestly like to know what voter suppression tactics are happening in America. From what I've heard from Europeans they tend to be pretty amazed at how lax our process is.
The fraud made possible by not requiring voters to show ID is the possibility that someone could impersonate a registered voter and cast their ballot. There are natural limiting factors on how much this form of fraud can be scaled up. Any one person impersonating other registered voters can probably get away with at most casting one ballot per voting location, lest they be recognized as a repeat visitor. Each person voting fraudulently needs to pick a specific registered voter to impersonate at each location, and memorize basic information about this voter (eg. name and address), and physically travel to each voting location. And if any of the marks picked to impersonate end up trying to vote for themselves, the attempted duplicate voter will be detected. So each participant in such a fraud scheme is good for optimistically a dozen fraudulent in-person votes over the course of any one election day, and if committed at scale with a large number of people, the risk of detection quickly becomes very high. The real-world rate of detection of this kind of fraud is extremely low, so we can be confident that this impractical form of fraud is in fact seldom attempted.
> It seems we have no real election auditing in our country, which frankly should be something that's done automatically at least on a spot-check basis.
I don't think this statement is about voter ID.
> One large category of fraud that it would prevent would be illegal immigrant voting. In my state you can register by having someone that is already registered vouch for you. That's it. No other identification needed.
The Voter ID proposals that have been so controversial in the US in recent years (since ~2006) are not about showing ID to register to vote. They're about showing ID on election day, even if you're already legally registered and have been voting without trouble for decades. If you are saying "voter ID" but you mean to talk about tighter controls on the voter registration process rather than on the process of voting on election day, then you should use different terminology rather than using a term that has a different meaning in current common usage.
But aside from that terminology issue: requiring people to show ID when registering to vote ahead of the election is not the only practical way to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Even if a prospective voter does not show current government issued photo ID when registering to vote, they still have to provide identifying information as part of the registration process. This can be audited before election day.
You can not function in modern society with our showing ID at various times, you can no rent a hotel room, a car, cash a check or hell even return merchandise to a store in many cases with out a ID
But you are telling me on of the most important civic responsibilities is suppressed by showing an ID, and ID that is freely available at no cost to all citizens
Come on Man...
And the context surrounding these laws is relevant, because in many cases the discriminatory intent is plain as day. The assumptions you're making about how universal photo ID requirements are in day to day life fall apart when you consider the specific demographics that have been targeted.
Taken together with the fact that these voter ID laws notionally address a problem that is only barely more than hypothetical, it's impossible to see these laws as anything other than political grandstanding and attempted voter suppression. They are much worse than merely being a solution in search of a problem.
It is possible to present the general idea of voter ID requirements as a harmless, well-intended security measure—as your comment attempts. But even the most cursory investigation into the specifics or history of voter ID in the US reveals that it is not harmless, does not solve a real problem, and is backed by malicious intentions. Which is why any "innocent" attempt to support the idea cannot be taken at face value. That well has been poisoned by an overwhelming volume of disingenuous propaganda.
Most states have had Free State ID's for longer than voter ID.
>>That well has been poisoned by an overwhelming volume of disingenuous propaganda.
There has been disingenuous propaganda on both sides of this debate you seem to only be able to recognize one side though
It is suppression because showing it on the election day is not the problem, it is getting that ID in the first place. The people who have problems getting that are largely specific categories of people, and the suppression comes via the obstructions which seem to have been purposefully put in place, years before the ID was required, and active opposition to removing them.
This quote, from Anatole France (The Red Lily, published 1894) summarizes it well:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
PS the things you mention, wrt 'modern society' ? Yeah, those things are also difficult for people who have not got ID and the people who have difficulty getting ID? They simply don't do those things.
Such as, I would love to see a list of what you consider to be unreasonable obstructions to obtaining an ID. I have a strong feeling we will not agree as to either their unreasonableness or that they are obstructions
>>This quote, from Anatole France (The Red Lily, published 1894) summarizes it well:
So what is your solution, just allow people to steal as long as they are in need?
Sounds like you are advocating for a system not based on individual equality under the law, but a cast system where your position determine how the law treats you, except you would find it "just" if the system punished those you perceived as successful or to use the a more common phrase from authoritarian circles "privileged" and excuse the actions of those deemed to not have said "privilege"
That is not a system I can get behind, I firmly and unequally believe in individual equality
Everyone should be treated the exact same by government no matter their age, race, religion, creed, national origin, sex, orientation, income, or any other characteristic beyond their individual actions
In the EU most require Photo ID to vote, and Require Photo ID to obtain a mail in ballot (in the few nations that all mail in voiting)
US has some of the, if not the most lack voting requirements in OECD.
Categorically untrue. As a Canadian living in the UK for nearly 20 years. In both the UK and Canada, I can vote without a ID let alone photo ID.
We bring in our poll cards and they let you vote. Then they cross your name and address off a list so you can't come in to vote again. The polling stations coverage is very good and you can only vote in your designated station, which is usually within walkable distance unless you live on a farm.
We also trialed photo ID for voting here in the UK. It was a massive failure.
I can also get a postal ballot with no problems.
Whatever the problem in the US is, it can be fixed without photo ID.
This is true, Photo ID is not the only way to improve Election Security, but many US states do not have assigned Polling Stations anymore, these open polling stations methods need something more than just poling card, plus there is early voting as well.
Also the UK has other methods of verification done at the time of registration that do not occur in the States, US Voter rolls are infamously insecure, outdated and have all kinds of issues, UK seems to secure their election on registration side instead of the voting site
US does not do either, and any attempt to add security either during registration or on voting day is attributed to racism or classism or some other bigotry
The US already has a registration system. The information just need to be current and the system designed in such a way where a registered person can only vote once (which is not what campaigners are against).
Over here, the local council sends you a letter regularly for you to update your details in the electoral register. If you don't respond then you are not registered to vote in upcoming elections.
They send you a poll card which tell you where to go vote. If you don't have your poll card you can still vote by turning up at the correct polling station. You can't vote at another station.
You have to provide your name and address and they will look you up on the electoral register. If the staff suspect you are fraudulent, they will call the police. After you are provided with a ballot, they cross you name out from the list so that it can't be reused.
There are a small number of cases of error or fraud is very low as you need a lot of information on a large scale over a large area across many polling stations to do meaningful election fraud undetected.
Not all for lack of standing. The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. That's consistent with what every one of the ~3000 county clerks in the U.S. will tell you about every election.
A much bigger issue is election fraud including voter suppression. What has pissed off Republicans this time around, is expansive mail-in balloting as a result of COVID mitigation. It managed to expand the voting pool against their wishes by making it generally easier for people to vote. It's difficult for judges to look at this and go, "ok so your legislative intent is to make it hard for some people to vote, but these are still legally cast votes per the legislature's own legislation, and you just don't like the outcome so you want me to disenfranchise them?" That's a no. A judge isn't going to do that.
I feel this is a dangerous cop-out. Some people feel this should be examined[1]. The evidence of actual problems in the election is suppressed by refusal to allow court proceedings and audit. This in turn renders remarks like yours more anecdotal than quantifiable. I'm not saying this is Venezuela, but there does indeed appear there are trout in the milk.
You are using language to evoke an emotional response to manipulate the reader into feeling that there is a problem, rather than identifying a specific problem in order to mitigate that specific problem. The language you are using is indistinguishable from anti-democratic propaganda.
This is reliable material about the voter fraud myth.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debu...
As for your URL, more bullshit.
>>Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Technically, mediabiasfactcheck used no actual evidence to dispute the veracity of "here is the evidence", only an assertion of "bias" against the sources. The Brennan Center report only asserts that other claims of evidence are false, not the ones in link I posted. Also it's rife with other tedious rhetorical fallacy. I can't see how you can make the leap without support. In fact, your arguments and the way you present your arguments seem to impeach the honesty of your claim.
(edit, since OP is apparently assuming I am a concern troll because my point was not clear to OP) Perhaps you have a polite and actually specific refutation to "here is the evidence"? Your comments seem deliberately demeaning and do not appear to have any actual substance.
No I don't. And, you have not provided a specific allegation to refute. You have expressed vague concern that is dire. You are a concern troll. Bye.
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigati...
Nothing in that turned out to be important enough for left-wing partisans to quote the report. The people bringing up the Muller investigation up first in the conversation tend to be told-you-so rightists; the left by and large would be happy for that debacle to fade into a distant memory.
This report concludes that some politicians don't want to cooperate with politically motivated investigations. The appropriate response to this revelation is shrugs and sniggering.
"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
Obviously "things were uncovered". People were charged. But their charges were obviously not related to Trump-Russia collusion, given Mueller's findings. So why is it that half of the country believes that he did? The answer is so, so obvious.
But hey, maybe you have a better handle on this whole thing than the ABA. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.
[0]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...
The investigation was about two things; Trump's collusion with Russia AND the obstruction of justice.
The report finds no overt collusion between Trump and the Russians. It details promises of influence to the Ukranians and the Russians by sleazy power brokers like Paul Manafort and Felix Sater, and Trump's associates soliciting Russians and pretty much anyone for Hilary's deleted emails but again, no substantial evidence of direct collusion.
Whether there was obstruction of justice seems like a much more legitimate cause for outrage. https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-repo... details the numerous ways this was attempted, though full-disclosure Brookings is left-leaning centrist think tank.
The full report is here https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf which you don't need to pass the bar to comprehend, though you do need a lot of free time. I've only read a few parts but it's further confirmed my belief that all politicians (right and left) are completely unscrupulous and must be in order win. "Democracy" is a vague, fungible concept that anyone vying for power will either disregard or interpret in their favor.
1) OP says Democrats haven't undermined democracy since the civil war.
2). I observe that Democrat leadership actively pushed the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to gain power.
3) I provide evidence that half of the country believes that the President of the United States conspired with Russia to gain power.
The fact that Trump may have obstructed the investigation matters--of course it does. And if he did, he should have been punished for it.
But even if he did attempt to obstruct the investigation, that does not change the basic fact that the Democrats actively undermined our Democratic institutions by convincing the American people, with out evidence, that the President was in cahoots with the Russians.
I have not intended to assert that Trump is as clean as a whistle, or that the Mueller report found nothing at all. (My 'zero evidence' claim above was vague and lazy--it was intended to refer to the question of collusion alone) My intent was to convey that there is no evidence of collusion, and that the fact that the American people were intentionally mislead on this point was the result of a concerted effort by the Democrats to mislead the American people and undermining faith in the President (and, necessarily, the presidency and our republic as a whole.
It is also true that charges were brought due the the Mueller probe, though none led to any charges related to colluding with the Russians to affect the outcome of the Election.
It is also true that Trump may have obstructed the investigation.
All three are true. The fact that folks are refusing to address the first fact by merely observing the second and third facts should indicate how masterfully those other issues--which are related to the Mueller investigation but have no bearing on the question of collusion--have been used to muddy the waters and cover for the Democrats' role in spreading the collusion conspiracy theory, at great cost to the country.
I agree that Democrats pinned Russian election interference (which did happen) to Trump (which probably did not) in an attempt to undermine his presidency. I also think this is not too far away from the norm. Remember the birther movement? The stolen 2000 elections? How do you rank claims of widespread voter fraud in that list?
However, I'll contend with you on your claim 1). OP did not say "Democrats haven't undermined democracy". He said Trump's undermining of the electoral system was just worse than the Democrats.
Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President.
And the final Senate report details even more communication than previously believed. But since it came out in August, it really got less media attention than it deserved.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...
Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your ex, so she hires a private investigator. She is not sure whether you spoke to your ex in person, by phone, or through one of several dozen close confidants with whom you regularly interact. After the investigation, she asks the PI whether he is confident that you did not make contact with your ex.
How could he possibly be? The sheer number of contact interactions makes it impossible to rule out. This is why our criminal justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. For many crimes, it is practically impossible to arrive at "confidence that the [accused] clearly did not commit a crime".
>Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President.
Given that the report stated outright that there was no evidence of collusion, I assume this is in reference to the question of obstruction, which is out of scope.
No, immediately following the statement about "we would have said so", he goes into -- "a current president can not be charged with a federal crime ...". He then goes on to say that he was bound by this property. That's an odd next statement for someone you think is innocent, but just can't prove a negative.
With a new attorney general and Trump about to no longer be an an active President, we may revisit this.
Sadly, Barr took the opportunity to put a different PR spin on the lack of accusation.
Mueller made it pretty clear he could not exonerate the President, and if he could he would have. Not only were there unanswered questions about Trump's involvement and knowledge of Russia contacts, but the report includes instances of probable obstruction.
This protest in the Capitol is a right-wing escalation of a sustained left-wing effort to paint the 2016 election as illegitimate. The US is in trouble if this new thinking takes hold and businesses start exercising their right to discriminate politically. The country will be inoperable.