Author Topic: The Third Debate  (Read 73586 times)

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #100 on: October 26, 2016, 01:20:40 AM »
Seriati and TheDeamon,

Please explain why the Bush White House needed to fire States Attorneys is a scandal so bad that it led to the resignation of a cabinet officer.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #101 on: October 26, 2016, 07:21:25 AM »
Quote
But let's invert it. Instead of inundating us all with hypothetical ways ballot fraud *could* happen, why don't you [Seriati] cite some clear reports that show that it *did* happen and that it changed the outcome of the election where it occurred.  Let's ignore JFK/1960, since we've all evolved since then.  For all the relish of the Wikileaks readers about the hacks into all sorts of Democratic public and private servers, I have yet to see any hacked emails talking about how the Party or Hillary's campaign rigged the AZ or NY primaries.  Why is that?
Crickets........................

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #102 on: October 26, 2016, 10:39:06 AM »
Seriati and TheDeamon,

Please explain why the Bush White House needed to fire States Attorneys is a scandal so bad that it led to the resignation of a cabinet officer.

Because with the task given, it was easier to try to fabricate "proof" rather than find the real thing. Once again, go back and review my earlier comments on this. The best they could do is try to canvas every single voter to find that small percentage of fraud. Then even if they did stumble upon it, the evidence would likely be rather thin or flimsy at best.

You're not going to get a general search warrant "to investigate possible voter fraud in the ____ precinct of _____ County." Never mind one powerful enough to compel said voters to prove they were U.S. Citizens. So such an investigation could literally knock on the door of an illegal alien that voted, and well, if they say they're a citizen, that's that.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #103 on: October 26, 2016, 10:47:18 AM »
Quote
But let's invert it. Instead of inundating us all with hypothetical ways ballot fraud *could* happen, why don't you [Seriati] cite some clear reports that show that it *did* happen and that it changed the outcome of the election where it occurred.  Let's ignore JFK/1960, since we've all evolved since then.  For all the relish of the Wikileaks readers about the hacks into all sorts of Democratic public and private servers, I have yet to see any hacked emails talking about how the Party or Hillary's campaign rigged the AZ or NY primaries.  Why is that?
Crickets........................

Well, I could have already mentioned an instance of voter fraud that I'm reasonably certain did happen, although I doubt any first-hand reports or accounts of it happening will surface for another 20 years or so. They'll likely be well into retirement before the actual people directly involved start talking.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #104 on: October 26, 2016, 11:10:02 AM »
Did that change the outcome of the election?  OTOH, incidents of voter disenfranchisement are very easy to spot in real-time.  Here's an example from Wisconsin:
Quote
A Green Bay, Wisconsin, city clerk refused to set up an early-voting site because she didn’t want it to help Democrats, newly released emails show.

According to the emails, obtained through an open-records request by the One Wisconsin Institute, City Clerk Kris Teske refused to open more than a single early-voting site because the local college students who would most benefit from it were likely to vote for Democrats.

“I have heard it said that students lean more toward the Democrats,” she wrote on Aug. 26 to David Buerger, counsel at the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, according to a report by The Nation.

“I have spoken with our chief of staff and others at City Hall and they agree that budget wise this isn’t going to happen,” she wrote. “Do I have an argument about it being more of a benefit to the Democrats?”

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #105 on: October 26, 2016, 02:31:43 PM »
To be fair, AI, Teske apparently was noting that there are statues that prohibit poll sites that affords an advantage to any particular party.

Quote
Teske wrote she didn't like the idea "at all for many reasons," citing staffing and others, and noted statutes say no polling site may be designated that affords an advantage to any political party.

"UWGB is a polling location for students and residents on Election Day but I feel by asking for this to be the site for early voting is encouraging the students to vote more than benefiting the city as a whole," Teske wrote. "I have heard it said that students lean more toward the democrats and he is a democrat. I have spoken with our Chief of Staff and others at City Hall and they agree that budget wise this isn't going to happen."

She also asked, "Do I have an argument about it being more of a benefit to the democrats?"

Of course, she was cut down in the reply to her e-mail:

Quote
"As far as stating that one political party may be advantaged more because of a particular location, I might be hesitant to make that argument unless you could point to something other than 'I've heard that students lean more democratic,'" Judnic wrote. "Additionally, the in-person sites could be used by all residents of the city and wouldn't be restricted to use by students. Finally, if the campus polling location is OK for election day, and there is no 'political advantage' then, I'm not sure what the difference is for in-person absentee voting at that same location?"

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #106 on: October 26, 2016, 02:37:41 PM »
Quote
To be fair, AI, Teske apparently was noting that there are statues that prohibit poll sites that affords an advantage to any particular party.
I'd like to see one of those statues.  I would expect it to look like John Belushi wearing a togo and holding a beer can in one hand and a copy of Hustler in the other.  You could call it the Statue of Libertine.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #108 on: October 26, 2016, 05:29:32 PM »
Did that change the outcome of the election?

If it happened at the full scale I suspect? Possibly. The one incident I heard about(from the postal worker that claimed to have "forgot" to change the date on his postmark), wouldn't have made a difference on it's own. But based on comments he made, I don't think it was isolated. (Officially it was an voter enfrancisement effort, making sure that deployed units which hadn't had any outgoing mail collected "recently" had their mail collected and expressed back. Odd that the effort didn't reach many units until after November 8th.)

Florida has been a "tax haven" state for Active Duty Military, in addition to other things being cheaper than their home states(auto registration, licensing, etc). So a lot of Military personnel who served brief training tours often change their Residency to Florida as a result.....

What do you think the odds are that they couldn't find enough deployed Florida residents that hadn't voted (absentee) already in numbers sufficient to swing the vote one way or the other. In particular given the heavy pro-Republican bias of the Military in 2000?

The U.S. military playing games with Presidential elections? Bah, that's totally never happened in the history of the country.  8)

Of course, the best part is it happened while the U.S. Military was headed by a Democrat. Bill Clinton no less.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 05:39:02 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #109 on: October 26, 2016, 05:51:26 PM »
OTOH, incidents of voter disenfranchisement are very easy to spot in real-time.  Here's an example from Wisconsin:
Quote
A Green Bay, Wisconsin, city clerk refused to set up an early-voting site because she didn’t want it to help Democrats, newly released emails show.

A clerk in Idaho could go at it from another way(they'd still lose as it pertains to poll locations), but it hits students in particular from another angle:
http://www.idahovotes.gov/students.shtml

Quote
Idaho Code § 34-107, defines residence for voting purposes:

(4) A qualified elector shall not be considered to have gained a residence in any county or city of this state into which he comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of making it his home but with the intention of leaving it when he has accomplished the purpose that brought him there.

Further:
Quote
This section in essence sets forth the concept of domicile ie. principal or primary home or place of abode of a person.

Idaho courts have held that “ for a change of domicile to occur, the fact of physical presence at a dwelling place and the intention to make it a home must concur and when such domicile is established, it persists until another is legally acquired. Kirkpatrick v. Transtector Systems 114 Id. 559.

The rules of the State Board of Education Governing Residence IDAPA 08.01.04.005.08) define domicile as follows:

The State Board of Education Rules Governing Residency Classification in the Idaho Administrative Code (IDAPA 08.01.04.05.08) define “domicile” as follows:

Quote
“Domicile” means an individual’s true, fixed, and permanent home and place of habitation; the place where the individual intends to remain and to which the individual expects to return when he leaves without intending to establish a new domicile elsewhere. The establishment of domicile in Idaho occurs when a person is physically present in Idaho primarily for purposes other than educational and can show satisfactory proof that such person is without a present intention to return to another state or acquire a domicile at some other place outside the state and the person has met any other applicable requirements of this chapter.

The above mentioned materials require that college students must establish, as with all other voter registration applicants, that the locale within which they seek to register and vote is their domicile i.e. that they are living in the college community with the intention of abandoning their former domicile and with the intention of remaining permanently, or for an indefinite length of time, in the new location.
...
Quote
As a student, you should not be registering and voting in your college locale simply because you failed to register and vote at your true domicile. Registering to vote is a serious matter which should only be done after proper reflection. It should be noted that there is no federal right to vote anywhere in the United States for the office of President. State laws control registration and voting and State residency requirements must be met.

We need and want all students to vote at their legal domicile.

Sure you can vote, but you can't vote here.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #110 on: October 26, 2016, 06:37:09 PM »
AI I figured out why there is a court battle going on in Michigan right now about whether ballot selfies should (still) be outlawed.  Obviously the amoral Democrats are kidnapping Republicans' family members, only to release them upon proof of voting for Hillary!  Nasty, awful, trixy Democrats.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #111 on: October 26, 2016, 08:25:21 PM »
Actually ballot selfies are probably prohibited for a much simpler reason, to prevent paying for votes.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #112 on: October 26, 2016, 09:40:16 PM »
Indeed, that is where it originated.  My story's better though...   :'(
The argument today is that people are doing this right now, because... well internet age, and they'd post selfies of their last B.M. if facebook wouldn't take it down.

Mostly I think the attempt to repeal this law is they don't want poll workers trying to reject voters for "breaking the law".  Just a coincidence that this would trend towards canceling out younger voters.  :)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #113 on: October 26, 2016, 10:10:14 PM »
Actually ballot selfies are probably prohibited for a much simpler reason, to prevent paying for votes.

Could be fun to abuse that way. Fill out a ballot one way to get paid, take picture, go back and ask for new ballot, destroy the old one, and vote how you want on the second.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #114 on: October 27, 2016, 08:51:34 AM »
Quote
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.
Not sure how I neglected this other point earlier, but - gerrymandering systemically disenfranchises millions of voters each election cycle, dwarfing even the worst nightmare scenarios of anybody positing in-person election fraud that could theoretically be addressed with official voter IDs

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #115 on: October 27, 2016, 08:52:20 AM »
Actually ballot selfies are probably prohibited for a much simpler reason, to prevent paying for votes.
That and, well, voter intimidation/protection rackets.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #116 on: October 27, 2016, 09:55:32 AM »
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-john-king-emails-show-clintons-own-staffers-think-shes-nuts-secretive/
Hard-hitting solid journalism :). Must have been a slow news day on the Clinton detail's election watch.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #117 on: October 27, 2016, 10:06:26 AM »

Sure you can vote, but you can't vote here.

Voting time. You don't have to vote at home but you can't vote here.

It was in my brain, and by way of my actions, now it is in yours.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #118 on: October 27, 2016, 10:39:09 AM »
Actually ballot selfies are probably prohibited for a much simpler reason, to prevent paying for votes.

Could be fun to abuse that way. Fill out a ballot one way to get paid, take picture, go back and ask for new ballot, destroy the old one, and vote how you want on the second.

Interesting idea.  I know it's illegal to vote twice; but is it illegal to get paid twice (by both sides) for your vote? ;)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #119 on: October 27, 2016, 10:45:37 AM »
Quote
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.
Not sure how I neglected this other point earlier, but - gerrymandering systemically disenfranchises millions of voters each election cycle, dwarfing even the worst nightmare scenarios of anybody positing in-person election fraud that could theoretically be addressed with official voter IDs

The problem with this is that the "guilty party" for gerrymandering isn't always who you suspect. I remember hearing an interview from one of the people involved in redistricting Utah after the last Census. The Republicans attempted to make, horror of all horrors, "two competitive districts" only for the Democrats involved to ask them rework it so they could have "a safe district" instead. They decided it wasn't worth the fight, and went with it.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #120 on: October 27, 2016, 11:38:41 AM »
Quote
The problem with this is that the "guilty party" for gerrymandering isn't always who you suspect. I remember hearing an interview from one of the people involved in redistricting Utah after the last Census. The Republicans attempted to make, horror of all horrors, "two competitive districts" only for the Democrats involved to ask them rework it so they could have "a safe district" instead. They decided it wasn't worth the fight, and went with it.
Which would mean that they created two safe districts, one for each Party.  I like that even less than outright gerrymandering by the controlling Party, since they put safety (complacency) ahead of their larger Party interests.  In the traditional gerrymandering model, it could always be undone by a swing in the state Legislature on a decadal basis.

To be totally contrarian, to favor "fairness" over local interests in the House, assign everyone in the state a number corresponding to a Congressional district and let them vote for whichever candidate they prefer.  Then there are no geographical constraints and no gerrymandering.  Could be interesting!
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 11:40:44 AM by AI Wessex »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #121 on: October 27, 2016, 01:30:52 PM »
Maybe all of this voter I.D. stuff really is as irrelevant as the Hillary supporters are saying.

http://www.infowars.com/report-votes-switched-from-trump-to-hillary-in-texas/

“Gary and I went to early vote today,” wrote Lisa Houlette on Facebook. “I voted a straight Republican ticket and as I scrolled to submit my ballot I noticed that the Republican straight ticket was highlighted, however, the Clinton/Kaine box was also highlighted!”

“I tried to go back and change and could not get it to work. I asked for help from one of the workers and she couldn’t get it to go back either. It took a second election person to get the machine to where I could correct the vote to a straight ticket,” she added.

Meanwhile, in Arlington, Texas, another voter reported a similar experience.

“I had a family member that voted this morning and she voted straight Republican,” wrote Shandy Clark. “She checked before she submitted and the vote had changed to Clinton! She reported it and made sure her vote was changed back. They commented that It had been happening.”

Social media forums are also ablaze with concerns about votes being switched.

“Multiple reports on my Facebook, Periscope, Snapchat, and Twitter from my friends in Texas, and all of them had their vote switched to Clinton automatically,” one post on The Donald Reddit is headlined.

The reports are alarming, especially given the fact that the media, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and even President Obama himself have all attempted to dismiss Donald Trump’s concerns about vote rigging as a baseless conspiracy theory.

A good person to ask about reports of vote rigging in Texas would be Texas Director of Elections Keith Ingram, but given that he ran away from our reporters – that might prove to be difficult."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who needs voter I.D. when you can just have the voting machine switch a Trump vote to one for Hillary?

Since there was a recent court ruling that you can photograph your ballot people should go in there and videotape their ballot in progress. It seems like for anything to be believed nowadays you need video of it happening. This seems like more than just a random glitch. If it is then it sure is an interesting coincidence that is just happens to switch Trump votes to Hillary. That's some serious election rigging proving that Trump was right to be concerned.
Too bad, Cherry, you've been had again.
Quote
Republican Donald Trump tweeted early Thursday morning that he is getting “a lot of call-ins about vote flipping at the voting booths in Texas.”

“What is going on?” Trump asked in his tweet.

The Republican nominee and real estate mogul was likely referring to debunked reports that voting machines in Texas are changing votes for president on straight-ticket ballots from Trump to Hillary Clinton.

Those reports — which originated in Tarrant County, according to Snopes — have since been debunked. Election officials have said repeatedly that any “vote flipping” is caused not by broken machines, but user error.

“Reports are not flooding in from across Texas about vote switching, and most anecdotes are identical with localities changed,” Snopes, a website that fact checks Internet and urban rumors, wrote in a post on Wednesday.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #122 on: October 27, 2016, 01:38:16 PM »
Also, nobody should vote a straight ticket anyway. It is irresponsible. If you don't know who you are voting for, don't vote based on a party label.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #123 on: October 27, 2016, 02:11:50 PM »
Quote
Except now you're talking nonsense.   Voter ID doesn't leave any citizen disqualified.  Felon's don't get to vote as policy choice.  Voter IDs are provided for free to those that otherwise can't afford them, and no one is disqualified.
Except now you are talking nonsense: voter ID laws are being defined at the state level, some of which are proposing existing types of ID as being valid for voter identification purposes.  IDs that not just cost money to acquire themselves, but also which require time to acquire during working hours, and the ability,in many cases, to travel and miss work (go back to the whole discussion on disenfranchisement and Republican state governments limiting voters abilities to access to the point of access for such IDs.)

And?  They've already struck down voter ID laws that require IDs and don't provide for free ones.  That point is moot.  The idea that it's too onerous to go and get an ID over a four year period isn't terribly persuasive.  Didn't stop the government from requiring them to buy a beer, didn't stop the government from requiring them to open a bank account or even to allow you to cash a pay check, not too onerous there?   But it's too difficult here?  Most locations where you can get a voter ID are open 6 or more days a week, often with extended hours on certain days.

The burden you are complaining about is virtually the definition of de minimis.


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #124 on: October 27, 2016, 02:31:02 PM »
If you use "end's justify the means" strictly as relates to illegal actions, I'll withdraw that example.  I don't use it that way as a rule.

I thought I gave the basis, illegal, immoral, unethical, what else could it mean?  For the expression to make sense, the "means" have to be questionable such that their use is only "justifiable" by the virtue of the cause. 

Quote
Quote
And?  Was he justified or not?  Why do you think it was a "dangerous precedent" if it was a proper means? 
I think he WAS justified.  Just as I think congress WAS justified in being obstructionist.

There's an inherent logical inconsistency there.  If you believe Congress was acting within its authority he can't be justified in acting outside his authority.  To believe he's justified to act outside of his Constitutional authority you have to believe that the cause was more important than complying with the Constitution.

Quote
I think both showed a flagrant disregard to how a government is suppose to function.  I think both stretch the rules of governance to avoid working together.

That's a false moral equivalence.  One breaks the rules is not on the same plane as those who operate inside the rules, even if both are literally self serving jerks.  Plus, Congress literally stretch no rules.  What rules did they stretch?  It's a legitimate function of Congress to choose NOT to act.

Quote
I find it "dangerous" because it may establish a new normal any time a single party doesn't hold both.

It's dangerous to establish a pattern of operating outside the law, not "dangerous" to establish a pattern of not working together.  Explain what the difference is between a King and a President that doesn't have to follow the law.

Quote
  I think it does a grave disservice to the nation if they branches are working to thwart each other (within the law) rather than try to run the country as best they can for the people in it.

Except that if they disagree fundamentally about the best direction for the country (and each have just about half the country on their side) then really the best course of action is to do nothing until a greater consensus arises.

Quote
Quote
There's also a massive disparity between the parties in who engages in civil disobedience (which is re-branded way to say ends justifies the means) rather than working with the system.
I'm probably on the sympathetic end of the Democrat spectrum to this argument.  However I'm young enough to be reaping the benefits of some of that "civil disobedience" that was used when "working with the system" had failed utterly.  In some ways, the system STILL fails to address issues.  I'm skeptical of situations where civil disobedience is now a legitimate tactic.  Particularly where active participation in the institutions or organizations being criticized is entirely open to those railing against their wrong doing.  I can't however dismiss it entirely.

That's a part of the delusion here.  The civil obedience was dramatic and people remember it and it made a real difference.  But its very visibility covers up the real changes were caused within the system.  People forget that forced integration and the death of segregation were imposed by the government.  That separate but equal became illegal, all manners of acts of specific discrimination torn down by actions of the system. 

And, the also seem to romanticize civil disobedience to the point where they lend the credibility of the original great causes to any cause that wonders by.  Is taking seats in a whites only restaurant and being arrested for it, really the same spirit as taking control of a bridge on campus and making white kids walk around it?

Quote
As for it favoring Democrats, or rather progressives, I think that only makes sense.  Now if we see civil disobedience from conservatives, when "the system" is now seen as unfair to them, has yet to be seen I suppose.  Unless you count some fringe cases that grabbed quite a bit of air and print time just a bit ago.

My honest opinion is that if you see civil disobedience from conservatives they'll have the book thrown at them.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #125 on: October 27, 2016, 02:41:25 PM »
Quote
I thought I gave the basis, illegal, immoral, unethical, what else could it mean?
I think it is the other two.  :)
Quote
  If you believe Congress was acting within its authority he can't be justified in acting outside his authority.
I can if I don’t believe he crossed the legal limits of his authority.  I think this was a proportionate response.  I can still think it was “dangerous” in that it sets a new standard.  He showed everyone the loophole, now others will use it.
Quote
It's a legitimate function of Congress to choose NOT to act.
Agreed.  WHY they are choosing not to act.  Such as giving the president a black eye rather than actual disagreements in policy.
Quote
Explain what the difference is between a King and a President that doesn't have to follow the law.
Again, I don’t feel he DID break the law.  He is still president after all, other than a lot of bellyaching, I don’t see any repercussions to his actions.
Quote
Except that if they disagree fundamentally about the best direction for the country (and each have just about half the country on their side) then really the best course of action is to do nothing until a greater consensus arises.
On points of contention, yes.  Unfortunately our country cannot operate on autopilot while they get paid to hold the line.  I get that congress can’t take ALL the blame for this, but neither can the president.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #126 on: October 27, 2016, 02:44:35 PM »
Quote
Simple words.  How can I refute the studies you find convincing if you can't identify which they are?
Nice deflection, Jiminy.  I cited a report that you deprecated because it wasn't a real study and allegedly used inferior methodology.  Can't you explain why?

Yes I can explain why.  It troubles me that you can't.  You're cool then that after I demonstrate the flaws in the methodology your point is nonsense?

Quote
I thought you would ignore my request, so I gave you a google search so you could see a sample of reports that more or less all agree that actual vote fraud is negligible.  You're pleading ignorance (which I think is accurate) in order to avoid looking at them and commenting, but that's ok; you've rarely been willing to find actual evidence for your positions.

Lol, you gave me a google search because that's the extent of your knowledge on topic.  You had an opinion of what's true and went out looking for support with a full on confirmation bias in operation.

Meanwhile, you've not addressed even a single issue I pointed out about the flaws in detection methodology (because you can't), nor have you put forward a single proposed method to actually identify voter fraud and prosecute it (again, because you can't do it).

You do understand that your argument is literally an argument from ignorance.  'Voter fraud doesn't exist because we haven't found it.'   That's an argument from ignorance.  My response, literally was to show why we'd be unlikely to find it, even if it exists.

Quote
But let's invert it. Instead of inundating us all with hypothetical ways ballot fraud *could* happen, why don't you cite some clear reports that show that it *did* happen and that it changed the outcome of the election where it occurred.  Let's ignore JFK/1960, since we've all evolved since then.  For all the relish of the Wikileaks readers about the hacks into all sorts of Democratic public and private servers, I have yet to see any hacked emails talking about how the Party or Hillary's campaign rigged the AZ or NY primaries.  Why is that?

Because that's not an "inversion" that's literally just a doubling down on your argument from ignorance.  Because you can't (not just wont, literally can't) address any of the concerns or issues I've raised, you are attempting to burden shift.  Asking me to literally go out and find evidence that I said is unlikely to exist is just beyond stupid.

Quote
October 25, 2016, 04:01:34 PM »

Quote
« on: October 26, 2016, 07:21:25 AM »

Crickets........................

Thanks for the whole half day for me to respond on the "crickets" accusation.  I guess this is one of those cases where you think its the word itself that is the hurtful part and because I accused you of crickets flipping it on me would be damaging.  Of course, when I leveled the accusation on you, it was after you'd responded multiple times and not addressed the issue, which kind of makes it a fair accusation don't you think.

And just to rehash it, if you still can't explain a reasonable method to catch voter fraud that doesn't violate anyone's rights (or even their overblown fake rights), then what else is it but crickets from you?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #127 on: October 27, 2016, 02:47:36 PM »
Quote
Quote
And?  Was he justified or not?  Why do you think it was a "dangerous precedent" if it was a proper means? 
I think he WAS justified.  Just as I think congress WAS justified in being obstructionist.

There's an inherent logical inconsistency there.  If you believe Congress was acting within its authority he can't be justified in acting outside his authority.  To believe he's justified to act outside of his Constitutional authority you have to believe that the cause was more important than complying with the Constitution.

And what if the system established by the constitution is unsuitable to actually effecting the function of government as originally conceived? In other words, what if there's an inherent design flaw and all parties involved recognize it? On the one hand you can fault them for deviating from the flawed system they are sworn to uphold, and on the other hand I can understand why someone would be more interested in things actually working as best as possible despite the system's flaws. It's even worse when making the system functional is against private interests. When a system like the U.S. government is flawed parasites swoop in the suck off the system, and when they grow from the feed the parasites will try to prevent their gravy training being altered. I feel like that's where we are right now.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #128 on: October 27, 2016, 02:50:48 PM »
I think I agree with Fenring, though the second to last sentence confused me.  Lots of negative imagery going on, all I got was "system bad!", which... I can't argue with.  :)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #129 on: October 27, 2016, 02:52:44 PM »
Quote
Quote
And?  Was he justified or not?  Why do you think it was a "dangerous precedent" if it was a proper means? 
I think he WAS justified.  Just as I think congress WAS justified in being obstructionist.

There's an inherent logical inconsistency there.  If you believe Congress was acting within its authority he can't be justified in acting outside his authority.  To believe he's justified to act outside of his Constitutional authority you have to believe that the cause was more important than complying with the Constitution.

And what if the system established by the constitution is unsuitable to actually effecting the function of government as originally conceived?

First of all its not, unless you are stating that we can't make a law that would resolve the issue.  Congress choosing not to put in place a better solution is not the same thing as the system being unsuitable or defective.  It's actually the system "declaring" for the lack of better word that we can't agree on a better plan - at this time - and we'll leave the status quoa in place.  Nothing about that calls for a single person to take on a personal authority to impose his preferred solution on the situation.

Quote
In other words, what if there's an inherent design flaw and all parties involved recognize it? On the one hand you can fault them for deviating from the flawed system they are sworn to uphold, and on the other hand I can understand why someone would be more interested in things actually working as best as possible despite the system's flaws. It's even worse when making the system functional is against private interests. When a system like the U.S. government is flawed parasites swoop in the suck off the system, and when they grow from the feed the parasites will try to prevent their gravy training being altered. I feel like that's where we are right now.

So be specific what the flaw is.  I don't a see a flaw in the government not being able to act when there isn't at least a majority view.

The only flaw I actually see here, is one that exists because of party politics.  Simply put there are very limited means to stop a President that is violating the law, if he has the active support of 41 Senators. 

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #130 on: October 27, 2016, 02:57:43 PM »
I honestly don't see the difference between what the president is doing / has done compared to congress pulling every procedural trick they can to block work getting done.  To be clear, I have zero problem with a sitting president (even one I voted for) having their agenda torpedoed by votes that say NO.    (as opposed to blocking a vote from happening)

The primary reason these executive actions have been at all effective is they exist in a vacuum.  They aren't countering the will of congress.  Congress is silent on the issues.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #131 on: October 27, 2016, 03:03:02 PM »
Maybe this will clarify my comment for both Seriati and D.W. I meant that if there was a flaw, and part of the nature of that particular flaw is to create barriers to correcting the flaw, then I can understand parties feeling they are in the right to somewhat push the meaning of the law around in order to do what they think is right. It may violate the constitution in a literal sense, while abiding by its spirit in another. The solution is not to ignore the law, but if the laws cannot logistically be fixed then you have a rock and a hard place.

To answer Seriati's specific question, I could give an example of what I see as such a flaw. Jefferson correctly predicted that establishing national parties would break down the theoretical system of Congress/Executive and would cause both branches to fail to do what they were meant to do. This probably got worse over time, especially as private interests alternatively failed or succeeded historically in worming their way into the system. By this time they are so enmeshed in it that even the divide between private/public scarcely exists, to say nothing of separation of powers. The lines are not drawn the way they were meant to be, and this flaw is prevented from being corrected by those parties who benefit from the party divide being as it is.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #132 on: October 27, 2016, 03:14:22 PM »
Quote
The problem with this is that the "guilty party" for gerrymandering isn't always who you suspect.
I disagree - the problem is not with who gerrymanders, but rather that it exists at all, and that it systematically disenfranchises millions of voters, both Republican and Democrat, dwarfing any possible effects of in-person voter fraud by orders of magnitude.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #133 on: October 27, 2016, 03:23:51 PM »
Quote
And?  They've already struck down voter ID laws that require IDs and don't provide for free ones.
So you accept that laws that were only recently enacted have been found by the courts to disenfranchise voters.  Isn't that the very definition of systematic disenfranchisement?  Do you dispute that there are still groups, including legislators, hoping to reinstate similar laws to "protect" against fraud, and among them people who do not accept the rulings you refer to as valid?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 03:28:06 PM by DonaldD »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #134 on: October 27, 2016, 03:46:23 PM »
One fairly exhaustive recent study by the Carnegie-Knight Initiative found the frequency of vote fraud by impersonation to be about 1:15,000,000, or about 0.0000067%.

First of all, its the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, which is not a group of scientists. 

From their web site, the Knight Foundation, "is a national foundation with strong local roots. We invest in journalism, in the arts, and in the success of cities where brothers John S. and James L. Knight once published newspapers."  The Carnegie Corporation of New York from their website, was founded as "a foundation that would 'promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.' In keeping with this mandate, our work incorporates an affirmation of our historic role as an education foundation but also honors Andrew Carnegie's passion for international peace and the health of our democracy."

So what's the initiative then?  Well it was a joint effort between the two groups, to “advance the U.S. news business by helping revitalize schools of journalism.”  Okay, how did that get us to a study on voter fraud?  Well, the initiative funding a project called News21, which is itself a project to bring together, "The nation’s most talented journalism students .... to report and produce in-depth, multimedia projects for major national media. News21 shows the kind of work that journalism students are capable of doing and is helping reshape the news industry."

So News 21, put out a project on voting rights in 2012.  Why go into all of this?  Because it explains why they conducted their efforts in the manner they chose to do so and why their results are flawed.  They literally produced very specific numbers that have been repeatedly cited and that don't mean what they imply.  So what did they do?  They essentially filed public records requests with every state board of elections, and if they weren't responsive with their attorney generals, and if they had to, with their county level prosecutors offices.

Now this obviously could only ever catch situations where a person was "caught" engaging in behavior that could constitute voter fraud (under that states laws).  Not every state  or county responded, some places refused to give information, still others expressly stated they don't track voter fraud or compile the data requested.  Doesn't appear to have been any effort to ensure that the method of reporting results was consistently applied across states, or metrics provided to explain gaps (for instance, they seemed to find a total of 2600 instances, yet they indicated Connecticut, which gave detailed records, had more than 200 alone, that's the kind of self reporting bias that makes a real scientist cringe).   

Did they conduct an actual study?  It really doesn't appear so.  Though they are referred to as having done so, they're very careful to label their records as a database.  They don't appear to have any of the metrics that a real study would include, there's apparent measures of significance or any attempt to evaluate correlation or causation. They did do what journalists like to do and make multiple conclusions based on the statistics that they were able to compile from their database, but that doesn't magically make it into a study with significance.  They certainly never point out the gaps in their data base, when they provide detailed and specific numbers and imply they have a "national" merit.  They don't emphasize that they made no efforts to consider if reporting standards differed locally as they relied on what they were given back.  And when the source was recited, and recited again, all the problems were completely disregarded and dropped, leading to such crazy quotes as what AI asserted in the quote above, converted it into a "fairly exhaustive study" that found a frequency for voter fraud.  Even though, if you look at what they did you'd see they made no effort to actually study the rate, frequency or incidence of voter fraud, and at best have a faulty database for even determining the rate at which voter fraud is prosecuted.

So AI if you have an actual study to cite to, would love to see it.  Or you have a defense of why a study focused on prosecutions and charges of voter fraud is meaningful as a response to what I said, you know, that voter fraud is difficult to catch and rarely prosecuted, bring it up now.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #135 on: October 27, 2016, 04:04:37 PM »
I honestly don't see the difference between what the president is doing / has done compared to congress pulling every procedural trick they can to block work getting done.

Maybe we're talking past each other.  My complaint is with the President taking actions without Constitutional authority or that violate the separation of powers.  These are literally acts that are unconstitutional.  So specifically, making a treaty with Iran without Senate approval - violation of the Constitution.  Changing the express terms of laws - Like with the application of Obamacare.  Making laws - like with his actions on immigration to try and grant status to illegal immigrants.  None of this is legitimate, there is nothing that Congress is doing that would be equivalent.

The equivalent would be if Congress decided to start passing Bills of attainder (by law declaring someone guilty of crime), or if Congress appointed itself to order the troops to war and started empowering Senators to go in the field as  generals.  Using procedurals tricks is expressly within the system, that's why they are called procedural tricks.

Quote
The primary reason these executive actions have been at all effective is they exist in a vacuum.  They aren't countering the will of congress.  Congress is silent on the issues.

Not true, his actions on Obamacare specifically changed the terms of the law (ie the express will of Congress) and on immigration he specifically refused to enforce the laws passed by Congress requiring illegal immigrants be deported.  These are not actions in a blank field.

And the only, only reason he has got away with it is because he has an impeachment proof minority of the Senate that believes the ends justify the means.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #136 on: October 27, 2016, 04:10:32 PM »
Quote
And?  They've already struck down voter ID laws that require IDs and don't provide for free ones.
So you accept that laws that were only recently enacted have been found by the courts to disenfranchise voters.  Isn't that the very definition of systematic disenfranchisement?  Do you dispute that there are still groups, including legislators, hoping to reinstate similar laws to "protect" against fraud, and among them people who do not accept the rulings you refer to as valid?

No, its not the definition of systematic disenfranchisement.  That would be a system that is designed for the purpose of disenfranchising voters, its quite clear that the reason voter ID receives wide spread support is not because people think it will disenfranchise eligible voters, but because they think it will prevent ineligible voters from voting.

An opinion that because it resulted in limited instances of disenfranchisement it had to be disallowed in total, is an extremist position.  It's not an indefensible one if you place an absolute priority on allowing every eligible voter to vote - even to the extent that you willing allow ineligible voters to vote as well to avoid the risk.    However, if you place an absolute priority on ensuring that the election itself is fair with both eligible voters allowed to vote, and ineligible ones excluded the logic fails.

In any event, providing for free IDs in a timely manner, is and should be a complete cure for that issue.  I'd even add, accepting provisional votes from voters who then obtain ID after the election.  All together that renders this complaint meritless.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #137 on: October 27, 2016, 04:43:56 PM »
Quote
Maybe we're talking past each other.  My complaint is with the President taking actions without Constitutional authority or that violate the separation of powers.  These are literally acts that are unconstitutional.  So specifically, making a treaty with Iran without Senate approval - violation of the Constitution.  Changing the express terms of laws - Like with the application of Obamacare.  Making laws - like with his actions on immigration to try and grant status to illegal immigrants.  None of this is legitimate, there is nothing that Congress is doing that would be equivalent.
I don’t think we are.  I understand your complaint.  I just don’t agree with your assessment of the facts on the ground.  I realize that is the talking point.  I’m not a constitutional scholar, so that may even be the case.  However, as it stands now, and I use the possibly erroneous benchmark of, “they bitched but let him get away with it”, I don’t believe he crossed that line.  You state it as fact.  As I don’t accept it as such, my logic follows a different path.  They COULD pass laws stating the express opposite of the president’s executive actions.  They’d have to make it veto proof though. 

Dirty politics?  Yes.  Unconstitutional?  I don’t think so.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #138 on: October 27, 2016, 07:25:28 PM »
Seriati, is there anything that could persuade you? 

You reject studies that find no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and you reject as heresay reports that Voter ID bills had political intent.  You also reject the evidence from all of the legal decisions against Voter ID laws, such as the ones in North Carolina and Texas? 

Your side is asserting that this unmeasured, invisible problem requires significant remedies.  Given that you provide no evidence to back your claim, what evidence would you require to reassess your position? In other words, what standards of evidence do you expect to be held to, and what standard of evidence do you hold others to?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #139 on: October 27, 2016, 08:12:55 PM »
Quote
No, its not the definition of systematic disenfranchisement.  That would be a system that is designed for the purpose of disenfranchising voters
Quite aside from the fact that there is significant evidence that such laws were actually designed with the intent of disenfranchising voters, "systematic disenfranchisement" does not require intent - it just requires that the system in place has the effect of disenfranchising voters.  Clearly, the laws struck down recently by the courts did have this effect, and clearly, they were part of the legal systems of the states that enacted them.  By definition that is systematic disenfranchisement.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #140 on: October 27, 2016, 10:48:47 PM »
Your side is asserting that this unmeasured, invisible problem requires significant remedies.  Given that you provide no evidence to back your claim, what evidence would you require to reassess your position? In other words, what standards of evidence do you expect to be held to, and what standard of evidence do you hold others to?

To be fair to Seriati, the sort of thing he's concerned about is precisely the thing that would lack the kind of data that sounds convincing. That's almost the point of the complaint in the first place - it's a potential systemic hole that at present has no recourse or method of detection. It's like saying there's a hole in the floor of the house. Maybe it's never even bothered anyone, but fixes don't have to remedy wrongs done so much as prevent them. I agree with you, mind you, that if such remedies come at significant expense they have to be justified. However on Seriati's side I would argue that when it comes to electing the head of the Federal government, I don't think it's irrational to call for serious measures to see to it that the system function as intended. Whether or not the particular issue Seriati's worried about has, in fact, resulted in fraud, I think the system should be airtight on principle, and it blatantly isn't.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #141 on: October 27, 2016, 11:01:43 PM »
Except it's a little disingenuous to try to make the system "airtight" in one very particular, probably insignificant and, as noted, unproven way, while ignoring that the system is already broken in so many very significant and proven ways.  Also, conveniently, the remedies to address the particular unproven issues in question will tend to disproportionately disenfranchise particular groups that tend not to support the people proposing the putative solutions, and will tend to disenfranchise people at a far greater rate than the purported fraud that these remedies aim to address...

It is effectively trying to make a container airtight by shooting it with a shotgun.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #142 on: October 27, 2016, 11:04:45 PM »
Quote
Thanks for the whole half day for me to respond on the "crickets" accusation.
You gave me 2 hours before you invoked the crickets, so I figured if I gave you 6 times as long it would be enough :).

Quote
First of all, its the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, which is not a group of scientists. 
Uh, does that mean it's not a study?

Quote
Now this obviously could only ever catch situations where a person was "caught" engaging in behavior that could constitute voter fraud (under that states laws).
Right, so they caught the ones that constituted voter fraud.  Makes sense.

Quote
So AI if you have an actual study to cite to, would love to see it.
What's the point? I reviewed about half a dozen of the links I revealed for you and all came to the same conclusions.  I could care less if you want to ignore all of the accounts that agree that discernable voter fraud is negligible.  Your way of handling this reminds me of Trump insisting that all claims of abuse of women are false because he says they are.  Cogito ergo sum rectum.  Take that however you like :)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #143 on: October 27, 2016, 11:08:36 PM »
Except it's a little disingenuous to try to make the system "airtight" in one very particular, probably insignificant and, as noted, unproven way, while ignoring that the system is already broken in so many very significant and proven ways.  Also, conveniently, the remedies to address the particular unproven issues in question will tend to disproportionately disenfranchise particular groups that tend not to support the people proposing the putative solutions, and will tend to disenfranchise people at a far greater rate than the purported fraud that these remedies aim to address...

It is effectively trying to make a container airtight by shooting it with a shotgun.

It's not like I don't agree with your point as well. But frankly I also agree that there's a security hole in the voting machine system.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #144 on: October 27, 2016, 11:33:04 PM »
If there is massive in person voter fraud it would be relatively easy for a modestly funded group to contact a sample of people who voted to confirm that they did in fact vote.  If you sample 1000 people and find 100 that claim they that didn't vote then we have a problem, if you contact 1000 people and find that they all voted then in person voter fraud is statistically likely to be a bogus problem.  If this is such a huge problem, it seems like one of the state legislatures or think tanks could of put together a sample 10x that size and found at least a couple hundred of people who were surprised to learn they voted in the last election.  That is the beauty of statistics, if in person voter fraud is a big problem then it is actually fairly easy to detect.  If on the other hand it is more like 1 in a million votes that get cast this way then it is really hard to catch but isn't really that much of a problem.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #145 on: October 28, 2016, 12:25:56 AM »
Not sure if people are talking past each other. I'd be more concerned that some % of votes cast are flipped in the machine than that votes for people are cancelled or alternatively created out of thin air. The total number of votes registered can be accurate but still have a rigged machine.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #146 on: October 28, 2016, 04:20:06 AM »
In any event, providing for free IDs in a timely manner, is and should be a complete cure for that issue.  I'd even add, accepting provisional votes from voters who then obtain ID after the election.  All together that renders this complaint meritless.

I would actually allow another option on this, although it would cause screaming for other reasons.

There is one form of identification that all people carry with them normally. It doesn't prove citizenship, but it would certainly catch multiple(fraudulent) voters that aren't extremely careful:

Provide a state/nation issued Identification in order to vote, or agree to being fingerprinted in addition to filling out an affidavit affirming your identity. Then after election day we can scan all those prints and check for duplicates... and known ineligible voters. Might even catch a number of impersonators as well, since not only criminals or people accused of criminal acts are in those databases.

But then we're fingerprinting lots of impoverished black men and that's bad, right?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 04:29:45 AM by TheDeamon »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #147 on: October 28, 2016, 06:05:39 AM »
Cherry, take note.  Here's another case of vote flipping, which has not yet been totally verified.
Quote
ATLANTA — A voting machine in Bryan County that may have been "flipping" some Georgia voters' picks for president has been removed from service, after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the problem to state elections officials.

The Secretary of State's Office has expressed confidence in the state's voting machines. It has launched an investigation into the Bryan County case and responded to a complaint in another county that turned up no error. Meanwhile, the Georgia NAACP says it has received unconfirmed reports about similar problems in a handful of other counties.

In Bryan, a voter who experienced a problem while early voting contacted the AJC, saying it took three tries Tuesday on a machine at the county's administration complex in Richmond Hill before it correctly recorded his choice of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

He said on the first two tries, he selected Clinton but the touch screen on the machine then changed to show his selection as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, which he canceled before trying again. He said his wife had a similar experience on the same machine.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #148 on: October 28, 2016, 09:06:49 AM »
I wouldn't have guessed Michigan was ahead of the curve with it's optically read paper ballots.  Then again the machine doesn't make noises or display what it counted my marks as when I feed in the ballot... 

Who HAVE I been voting for?!?!   :o
At least they can do a manual recount... if the courts let them. 

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #149 on: October 28, 2016, 09:29:34 AM »
Voting for Trump is so absurd that I hope people who are thinking of doing that will write in a vote for Bernie Lomax instead.  He won't be any good, but unlike Trump he won't be dead wrong.