VOTER SUPPRESSION by Republicans in Georgia and elsewhere

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's a movie you can watch about voter suppression happening now. It is promoted on the Thom Hartmann program, so it's probably only slightly biased. The following is the trailer:



It charges that there are Republican vigilantes watching the polls (mostly southern states) or ballot deposit boxes and intimidating Black voters, to scare them away from voting.

You can view the whole movie at https://www.gregpalast.com/vigilantefilm/

For a short time it's free, but unfortunately you have to "register" or go through some procedures to be able to see it.



Whatever is going on, there's no solution to it until the whole "voting" system, or institution of "democracy" is overhauled. Something new is needed, which might gradually replace the farce we have in place now. This replacement cannot happen in the short term, but will require decades to develop into something workable. Maybe 100 years or so -- long after the world has suffered from the ravages of climate change which nothing we do now can prevent. But something should begin now which can give hope for improving the decision-making at least in the long-term future.

Some changes needed are:

Voting must be made open to absolutely everyone (everyone who shows up and says "I want to participate in the decision-making"), without any exclusions of any kind, no matter what the criteria.

Voting must be made to happen every day, 24-7, 365 days a year (366 on leap year).

All voting made open to everyone, without distinction (whoever shows up), and everyone can vote as much as they want, all days throughout the year.

All humans may participate in the decision-making with no one ever being granted any special or unequal power that others don't have.


And probably more changes also. This of course would require a long time to put into place, not just a few years. The replacement of the present system would require decades, and some parts of the current system might never be replaced.

Until such replacement process begins, it is hopeless to think anything can be done to fix any current voter suppression or voter fraud or election-stealing problems we are seeing now. All these problems are only going to increase, the way it's going now.

 

[ZiprHead]

Narated by Rosario Dawson. She's a hottie.

 

[Oleg]

and everyone can vote as much as they want, all days throughout the year.

Can’t tell if serious or prank.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Or maybe we do away with elections and just give the positions to whoever raises the most money. We are almost there already.

 

[Ford]

Until such replacement process begins, it is hopeless to think anything can be done to fix any current voter suppression or voter fraud or election-stealing problems we are seeing now. All these problems are only going to increase, the way it's going now.

Um...what?

There is now and has always been attempts at voter suppression. Current examples are "purges" of voter rolls, reduction of polling places/hours in districts "undesirable" to those in power, targeted voting restrictions, and of course here in AZ armed militia types "monitoring" drop boxes and polling places. Historical examples include...the entire American south in the Jim Crow era. Everything from poll taxes to trumped-up literacy tests and straight up violence.

But the "voter fraud or election-stealing problems" of today? These are not problems. Allegations of widespread voter fraud by the Democrats in the 2020 election all fell flat. Every swing state's elections were thoroughly investigated and no fraud was found. Here in AZ, a blatantly partisan pro-Trump "independent" audit not only found no fraud, but by their count actually made Biden's margin of victory wider.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud and "election stealing" are simply not true, with the exception of the attempt to overturn the election which was led by the Trump White House with their fake electors scheme.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

and everyone can vote as much as they want, all days throughout the year.

Can’t tell if serious or prank.

There's nothing wrong or impractical about it, as long as the same freedom is granted to all equally.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Until such replacement process begins, it is hopeless to think anything can be done to fix any current voter suppression or voter fraud or election-stealing problems we are seeing now. All these problems are only going to increase, the way it's going now.

Um...what?

There is now and has always been attempts at voter suppression. Current examples are "purges" of voter rolls, reduction of polling places/hours in districts "undesirable" to those in power, targeted voting restrictions, and of course here in AZ armed militia types "monitoring" drop boxes and polling places. Historical examples include...the entire American south in the Jim Crow era. Everything from poll taxes to trumped-up literacy tests and straight up violence.

But the "voter fraud or election-stealing problems" of today? These are not problems. Allegations of widespread voter fraud by the Democrats in the 2020 election all fell flat. Every swing state's elections were thoroughly investigated and no fraud was found. Here in AZ, a blatantly partisan pro-Trump "independent" audit not only found no fraud, but by their count actually made Biden's margin of victory wider.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud and "election stealing" are simply not true, with the exception of the attempt to overturn the election which was led by the Trump White House with their fake electors scheme.

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election. In addition to that, there are many charges that elections have been bought by the candidate who raised the most $$$$ from special interests. So there's widespread perception that political power is being seized illegally or fraudulently by usurpers of one kind or another, not only illegally, but legally also, which in some cases is even worse.

 

[Patooka]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Such as?

 

[ZiprHead]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Name three.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Such as?

Probably you -- i.e., still believe it -- and others posting in this website.

If not, then say these words now to set the record straight: President Donald Trump won the 2016 election fair and square. You won't post that.

Probably no Dems here will post those words (or equivalent). Just because they've now gone past this doesn't erase all those accusations back in 2017-18 when it was current news.

And besides, the fact is that he DID steal the 2016 election, even if you've since retracted whatever you said back then. So if you're not still complaining that he stole it, you should be, because it's the truth. Both sides cheated, but Trump was more successful at cheating than Hillary was. In many elections the winner is whichever side did better at cheating.

 

[Ford]

Until such replacement process begins, it is hopeless to think anything can be done to fix any current voter suppression or voter fraud or election-stealing problems we are seeing now. All these problems are only going to increase, the way it's going now.

Um...what?

There is now and has always been attempts at voter suppression. Current examples are "purges" of voter rolls, reduction of polling places/hours in districts "undesirable" to those in power, targeted voting restrictions, and of course here in AZ armed militia types "monitoring" drop boxes and polling places. Historical examples include...the entire American south in the Jim Crow era. Everything from poll taxes to trumped-up literacy tests and straight up violence.

But the "voter fraud or election-stealing problems" of today? These are not problems. Allegations of widespread voter fraud by the Democrats in the 2020 election all fell flat. Every swing state's elections were thoroughly investigated and no fraud was found. Here in AZ, a blatantly partisan pro-Trump "independent" audit not only found no fraud, but by their count actually made Biden's margin of victory wider.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud and "election stealing" are simply not true, with the exception of the attempt to overturn the election which was led by the Trump White House with their fake electors scheme.

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election. In addition to that, there are many charges that elections have been bought by the candidate who raised the most $$$$ from special interests. So there's widespread perception that political power is being seized illegally or fraudulently by usurpers of one kind or another, not only illegally, but legally also, which in some cases is even worse.

Ah, the "many people are saying" line that Trump uses. Also heard as "a lot of people are saying," or Turducken Carlson's favorite "I'm not saying the election was stolen, I'm just asking questions."

But since you brought it up, I'd remind you that Trump also believed there was widespread fraud in the election that he won. Millions of fraudulent votes in California alone. Buses of illegal immigrants being shipped to swing states. Trump still insists that such things actually happened.

After he took office, Trump - determined to root out all this fraud - put together a blue-ribbon panel to investigate this pressing issue. Prominent Republicans were chosen to lead the effort, and enormous amounts of money were spent to "find the voter fraud" that the panel assumed existed.

You may have missed it, because after many months of thorough (and no doubt hopelessly biased) investigation, the panel very quietly dissolved after finding....spoiler alert...not a goddamned thing.

The "widespread perception" of fraud exists in it's current iteration mostly because the Republican Party - despite knowing full well there's no "there" there, continues to push the false narrative that our elections are hopelessly broken, riddled with fraud, and simply cannot be trusted...unless they win. Here in AZ, Senate candidate Blake Masters has already claimed fraud in an election that hasn't happened. Kari Lake - on whose campaign signs she shares with a photo of Trump - says that she will accept the election results, but only if she wins. She will declare it fraudulent if she loses.

It has been established that there was no significant voter fraud in either the 2016 or 2020 elections. What needs to be done (instead of your harebrained schemes) is for public officials and leaders from both parties patiently explaining to voters - repeatedly - that our elections are safe, secure, free, and fair. One major party is doing the exact opposite.

 

[Ford]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Such as?

Probably you -- i.e., still believe it -- and others posting in this website.

If not, then say these words now to set the record straight: President Donald Trump won the 2016 election fair and square. You won't post that.

Probably no Dems here will post those words (or equivalent). Just because they've now gone past this doesn't erase all those accusations back in 2017-18 when it was current news.

And besides, the fact is that he DID steal the 2016 election, even if you've since retracted whatever you said back then. So if you're not still complaining that he stole it, you should be, because it's the truth. Both sides cheated, but Trump was more successful at cheating than Hillary was. In many elections the winner is whichever side did better at cheating.

For such a short post, there's a lot to unpack here.

You were asked to provide examples of "Democrats" that still "charge that Trump stole the 2016 election." When asked, you said "probably you...and others."

If that's your standard of evidence, then this is going to be a long and fruitless thread.

As for wanting "Dems" to post your words, I can't help you there, as I am not and have never been a registered Democrat. I will say that by all accounts (and the Trump administration investigated...see above response), the 2016 election was largely free of voter fraud (meaning there wasn't anywhere near enough to alter the outcome) and that while Trump did lose the popular vote by a rather wide margin, he won the electoral college.

Was there election interference? Yes. Russia in particular attempted to breach our voting systems (and failed), as well as mounted a huge social media misinformation campaign complete with dedicated troll farms and dark money funneled to organizations like the NRA. The then Republican-controlled Senate confirmed their attempts to interfere, and the fact that they wanted Trump to win is now painfully clear. They were banking on him to not interfere when they annexed the rest of Ukraine.

As for that last bit, the old saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Proving that Trump DID steal the 2016 election and that Hillary cheated but just didn't do it hard enough is a tall order that can't be filled with "probably...."

You are of course welcome to post your evidence that the 2016 election was stolen by Trump out from under the nose of Hillary who also tried to steal it, that voter fraud is "even worse" now (what's worse than none at all?), and that your solution of "let everyone vote as often as they like" is going to fix anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Name three.

He probably did--but by voter suppression rather than anything to do with the ballot box. There were more people who couldn't vote in some key states than the margins by which he won.

 

[Patooka]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Such as?

Probably you -- i.e., still believe it -- and others posting in this website.

If not, then say these words now to set the record straight: President Donald Trump won the 2016 election fair and square. You won't post that.

Probably no Dems here will post those words (or equivalent). Just because they've now gone past this doesn't erase all those accusations back in 2017-18 when it was current news.

And besides, the fact is that he DID steal the 2016 election, even if you've since retracted whatever you said back then. Both sides cheated, but Trump was more successful at cheating than Hillary was. In many elections the winner is whichever one did better at cheating.

I will never say President Donald Trump won the 2016 election fair and square. The reason being is because when Donald Trump won the 2016 election, He was never President.

But he won. Fair and square.

I'll even go further. Democrats were fucking morons thinking Hilary Clinton could win a Presidential Election fucking EVER. This is someone who is considered the fucking anti christ. This is someone who Rush Limbaugh mad fucking millions proclaiming to be all that is evil. I'm gonna be honest; most of the conspiracy theories about "Hitlery", are so old, they could legitimately vote in the fucking 2016 election. Her name recognition was enough to sink her. She had no chance against Trump. He won fair and square.

But guess what? Every single fucking Republican Senator unanimously voting in agreement in a statement that Russia tried to manipulate the 2016 election. They voted again, in unanimous agreement, to organise an investigative body to figure all this out.

THIS WAS SUPPORTED BY BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND IT LED TO A MASSIVE FUCKING SHIT TON OF CONVICTIONS AND SO MUCH WAS SEIZED THE INVESTIGATION PAID FOR ITSELF. HOW THE LIVING FUCK DID YOU MISS THAT?

You must be truely dumb as dogshit if you believe, as apparently you do, that the Russian interference on 2016 is the same as Hugo Chavez rising from the grave to commit voter fraud with Italian satellites and Chinese bamboo paper.

But whilst we are talking about voter fraud in 2016, do you know who believed there was voter fraud in 2016? This retard.

Trump won the 2016 election fair and square. Billy Bob inbred retard McDumfuck from Alabama was always going to vote for him, no matter what. Sane people were going to vote for Evil Satanic Pedophile Hitlery no matter what. Russia was never going change either demographic - Hitlery was still a shitty choice for Dems.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Have we run out of pineapples?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Name three.

Thom Hartmann and at least half his listening audience, and 90% of the callers to his program. He has published a book on this detailing how Republicans are stealing many elections.

There are many YouTube videos where he says it. E.g.: (mostly the first 20 minutes)

He also says Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, mainly by kicking Democrat voters off the rolls of eligible voters. In Florida and Ohio and other key states.

He says there's a "Red shift" phenomenon, meaning that the Exit Poll is accurate, showing that the Democrat won the vote, but Republicans eliminated thousands of the Democrat votes and thus wiped out the Democrat victory and shifted the count to produce a small Republican majority. This happens in states having a Republican Secretary of State. It gets Republicans elected also to state legislatures and to Congress. Without this cheating, Washington would be perennially Democrat-dominated and also most state governments.

Probably this cheating and stealing elections is inevitable as long as we have the concept of "ineligible" voters in the law. Republicans will always find ways to disqualify enough Democrat votes so as to change the outcomes to their favor.

They usually know about how many votes they need to eliminate in order to shift the result to their favor. It's similar to Trump when he said "we need 11,000 votes" -- "come on, fellas, you can find me those, give me a break," etc. So they know about how many votes have to be eliminated, and they gear up the process so as to delete that many Democrat votes.

 

[Swammerdami]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Such as?

Probably you -- i.e., still believe it -- and others posting in this website.
. . .
And besides, the fact is that he DID steal the 2016 election, ... it's the truth. Both sides cheated, but Trump was more successful at cheating than Hillary was. In many elections the winner is whichever side did better at cheating.

Let's see if I got this straight. You accuse — with no evidence — that many at IIDB claim that Trump stole the 2016 election. THEN You go to the head of the line to claim that Yes, He DID steal the 2016 election.

Wow.

This isn't the first time one of your posts has elicited a 'Wow.' Your prescription for elections — Vote early and often — also seems unorthodox. Do you have a brief phrase describing your political philosophy? If I joined your Party, what would I call myself?

I didn't vote in your poll. Are you missing an option? Perhaps "I have stopped beating my wife." ?

 

[ZiprHead]

No, many Democrats still charge that Trump stole the 2016 election.

Name three.

Thom Hartmann and at least half his listening audience, and 90% of the callers to his program. He has published a book on this detailing how Republicans are stealing many elections.

There are many YouTube videos where he says it. E.g.: (mostly the first 20 minutes)

He also says Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, mainly by kicking Democrat voters off the rolls of eligible voters. In Florida and Ohio and other key states.

He says there's a "Red shift" phenomenon, meaning that the Exit Poll is accurate, showing that the Democrat won the vote, but Republicans eliminated thousands of the Democrat votes and thus wiped out the Democrat victory and shifted the count to produce a small Republican majority. This happens in states having a Republican Secretary of State. It gets Republicans elected also to state legislatures and to Congress. Without this cheating, Washington would be perennially Democrat-dominated and also most state governments.

Probably this cheating and stealing elections is inevitable as long as we have the concept of "ineligible" voters in the law. Republicans will always find ways to disqualify enough Democrat votes so as to change the outcomes to their favor.

They usually know about how many votes they need to eliminate in order to shift the result to their favor. It's similar to Trump when he said "we need 11,000 votes" -- "come on, fellas, you can find me those, give me a break," etc. So they know about how many votes have to be eliminated, and they gear up the process so as to delete that many Democrat votes.

Is he wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's see if I got this straight. You accuse — with no evidence — that many at IIDB claim that Trump stole the 2016 election. THEN You go to the head of the line to claim that Yes, He DID steal the 2016 election.

Wow.

This isn't the first time one of your posts has elicited a 'Wow.' Your prescription for elections — Vote early and often — also seems unorthodox. Do you have a brief phrase describing your political philosophy? If I joined your Party, what would I call myself?

I didn't vote in your poll. Are you missing an option? Perhaps "I have stopped beating my wife." ?

There's little doubt that if all the disenfranchized voters in 2016 had voted Hillary that she would have won. Thus it's certainly possible the election was stolen, but I doubt it can ever be proven.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Inclusionism

Let's see if I got this straight. You accuse — with no evidence — that many at IIDB claim that Trump stole the 2016 election.

"accuse"?

No, many "Democrats" charge this, and probably many posting in IIDB believe it (believe Trump stole it). And there are earlier cases also, such as the 2000 and 2004 elections which Republicans stole, according to Democrats. And they're probably right that those elections were stolen.

Your prescription for elections — Vote early and often — also seems unorthodox.

Yes. Basically voting should be something which is permanent, always going on, 24-7 and 365 days a year. And everyone should be allowed to participate in the process as much as they want. The process should change so that "early and often" is not illegal, or against the rules.

As long as it's permitted for EVERYONE to participate as much as they want, what would be wrong with it? Why doesn't anyone explain why this wouldn't work?

This "early and often" doesn't have to mean instituting something new which REPLACES or ELIMINATES the present voting system (even if that would ideally be best). Rather, it means expanding the system, adding a new procedure, which would be inclusive, and this would be an "early and often" procedure (and yet at the same time the current "voting" system would continue (i.e., the system of having "voters" mark their "X" by the name of the demagogue of their choice)). And this new procedure would eventually be instituted as an official part of the decision-making process.

Do you have a brief phrase describing your political philosophy?

No. But maybe my point here can be stated briefly:

We need some kind of change which makes it possible for EVERYONE to genuinely participate, instead of this present process which in practice excludes everyone who is not a Red or Blue disciple, and also officially excludes some by means of unnecessary "eligibility" rules. We have in effect a process which enshrines the two Red and Blue camps, and everyone who is not a disciple of the Red or the Blue crusade is unable to have a voice. To insult them by handing them a piece of paper which allows them only to mark their "X" next to the Red or Blue Demagogue of their choice is not a democratic process which lets them participate or express their sentiment(s). And there is nothing about the real world which requires such an exclusionary process as this. Some alternative, or change, is possible to correct this.

But admittedly it could take a long time for this condition to change. Why can't decent people somewhere begin doing something of a long-term nature to find ways to make changes which would expand the system to include everyone?

If I joined your Party, what would I call myself?

I didn't vote in your poll. Are you missing an option? Perhaps "I have stopped beating my wife." ?

Add that option if you want.

How about the Inclusionism Party. This isn't really about a "party," but about a principle of inclusionism, or how all should be included in the process, and no such thing as anyone being ineligible, or having to meet some requirement. Or excluded because they can't identify with either the Red or Blue demagogues.

Part of this would be to eliminate virtually any idea that there is such a thing as being "ineligible" -- i.e., everything which divides someone off into an "ineligible" category. It should be impossible that anyone could ever show up and be "ineligible" to participate. Or rather, there needs to be a participation system which makes "ineligibility" a meaningless notion. And this participation should be a procedure which is recognized and (eventually) given official status in the decision-making process. And anyone should be able to in some way promote their sentiment(s) by their participation.

There are millions of issues "voters" care about. Here's a simple example how one's "voice" is excluded: What if someone is in favor of INcreasing the gasoline tax, which is effectively excluded from being considered. That's a legitimate sentiment even though it is rejected by more than 90% of the population. One who favors this should still have a way to input this sentiment into the system. But this choice is excluded to participants. No candidate promotes increasing the gas tax. And yet it should be possible for the "voter" to express their sentiment on this. How can they do this? Who can they vote for? Why can't there always be a candidate, or choice, allowing the "voter" to have their voice, even if they're in the minority and won't get their way?

One solution might be to allow everyone to vote for whoever they want, rather than being limited to only the prescribed 2 candidates (or only 5 or 6 etc.). And with such a wide range of millions of candidates to choose from, a "voter" could find someone who represents their sentiment. Or even vote for him/herself.

The point is that there's no reason why "voters" should be excluded from expressing their sentiment(s) on all the issues they care about. Expressing one's sentiment does not mean they get what they want. They can still be overruled by "the majority" or others who have a different sentiment. But why should anyone be excluded from being able to input their sentiment into the official process?