Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

I'd be against a 'voter ID' as well. As in, an ID with the sole purpose of identifying yourself when you want to vote. Your personalized ballot in combination with your normal ID should be sufficient.

I'm not against an ID in general though. If we had no ID and social security number over here, no one would be able to get state benefits, or tax returns, or education, or a job, or a driver's license, or vote. Ideally it would have to be free, and easily available. Over here, you pay about 70 euros I think for an ID card (can only travel within the EU with that one), 140-ish for a passport (worldwide travel). If someone lives on social minimum /welfare, I do believe they will get an ID card for free via city funds once every 5 years.

I am against mandatory carrying at all times of an ID though. Not having your ID on you should not be a crime. Sadly it is over here since about 10 years.

Homeless people with no ID do have a bureaucratic problem. To apply for a new ID, you need an adress of residence. To get an adress of residence, you need an ID. Luckily there's welfare workers that can fix post box adresses that count as adress of residence, but if you don't know where to get help, it is complicated.

[Doomblade187]

I will note that we have trouble with providing address of residency for homeless people here - barely any systems in place for them at all, at least compared to countries that fucking care about humanity.

[anewaname]

Drift out of the workforce long enough, end up living with someone for a while, suddenly it is really hard to even begin to prove you're actually a person standing there, and last time I tried was before they closed several DMVs and shit out here.

The Real ID Act caused issues for people I know who were 70+ years old and had lived and worked in the same state all of their life.

[Random_Dragon]

So at this point we're right back to "don't even bother responding to anyone advocating voter fraud as a serious talking point, because either they don't know what they're talking about or they're actively pushing a racist and/or fascist agenda in bad faith" again.

[Frumple]

If they're talking about voter ID as any sort of solution, anyway. Or saying it's a bigger issue than, say, voter suppression/undermining electoral infrastructure.

Maybe in general, but definitely if they're doing one of those. Might be a different discussion if this was some other thread talking about some other country, but... it ain't.

[Bumber]

This is not the case. The majority of the rulings against Trump were "You have failed to provide the slightest trace of evidence to support your claim of fraud". They weren't thrown out on some procedural issue, they were thrown out because the judges recognized it as the "I appointed you, now throw out democracy for me" gambit that it was.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-lawsuits-election-results-2020-11
(Trump campaign suits are mixed in with those from other Republicans. I've bolded the ones by Trump campaign.)

Spoiler: Yuge list! (click to show/hide)

SCOTUS
1. Request to block certification Pennsylvania. SCOTUS turned down; couldn't grant relief.
2. Overturn Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. SCOTUS turned down; no standing.
3. Overturn three decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over mail-in ballots. SCOTUS declared moot by the time it reached them.

Pennsylvania
4a. Lawsuit over extending deadline past election day to show ID. Commonwealth court sided with Trump, Penn supreme court overturned because .
4b. (Article links wrong overturn for 4a. Instead is one about invalidating election result because campaign observers kept too far for oversight. Dismissed because minimum distance not defined by law; "garden-variety irregularities" not enough to grant relief.)
5. Lawsuit alleging widespread irregularities. Denied due to lack of evidence; can't grant relief; no standing.
6. Delay deadline for ballot requests. Lacked standing.
7. Prevent "curing" of ballots. Case withdrawn by Republicans.
8. Stop counting of votes without Republicans present. Dismissed; Republicans were present.
9. Stop counting of mail-in votes. Withdrawn by Trump lawyers.
10. Challenge on organizing of ballots. Withdrawn by Republican.
11. Trump campaign challenged #10; unsealed outer envelopes with no handwritten info on them. Dismissed (no standing?); no fraud alleged.
12. Throw out cured ballots. Denied, but ballots ordered segregated in case they become contested.
13. Prevent county from revealing identities of people whose ballots were canceled. Denied without comment.
14. Invalidate absentee voting after voting already ended. Dismissed; filed too late.
15. Similar to #14. Dismissed; filed too late.
16. Overturn #14. SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4, failing to overturn.

Nevada
17. Stop counting due to concerns over signature matching tech and lack of oversight. Denied due to lack of evidence against tech or election staff bias.
18. Stop counting until GOP could observe. District court denied. Appealed to state court. Withdrawn after settlement reached.
19. Challenging mail-in ballots of people who don't live in state. Republicans withdrew lawsuit after state certified election.
20. Allegation of enough irregularities to overturn Nevada result. Denied due to lack of evidence.

Georgia
21. Request to toss out 53 ballots that arrived after polls closed. Denied due to no evidence that they didn't arrive on time.
22. Republican elector sued to prevent certification because of voter suppression? Denied due lack of standing; Trump not even involved, and individuals have no basis to dictate how their vote is counted. (This is just some rando claiming his vote was suppressed due to signature checks. Not sure why this is even on the list.)
23. More WTFery related to #22. Denied.
24. Attorney that Trump fired made allegations of wide-spread voter fraud. Denied; no evidence; can't grant relief; no standing; too late.
25. Trump sued to decertify Georgia election. Withdrawn.

Michigan
26. Trump campaign sued on irregularities and lack of observation. Lawsuit withdrawn; result achieved?
27. Stop counting ballots. Denied; insufficient evidence; can't grant relief; moot since votes already counted.
28. Poll challenger sued to stop certification due to improper review of ballots. Denied due to insufficient evidence, judge found defendants' account more persuasive.
29. Lawsuit alleging fraud in vote-counting procedures, audit requested. Amount of testimony not to be disregarded. Audit must wait until after certification, at which point it will be moot.
30. Same as #24. Denied due to numerous errors; too late.

Arizona
31. Trump filed lawsuit over sharpies causing issues with scanning ballots. Denied due to lack of evidence.
32. Brought #31 to state court. Dismissed after audit.
33. GOP chair files lawsuit. Denied due to lack of evidence.
34. Attorney fired by Trump alleges voting machine errors. Denied due to lack of evidence, lack of standing, too late, can't give relief.

Wisconsin
35. Trump filed lawsuit overturn election results. Declined to hear; must make way through lower court.
36. Similar to #35. Can't grant relief; state legislature has authority, not court.
37. Right-wing group sued to throw out votes and have legislature decide election. Denied; no evidence, can't grant relief.
38. Same group sued many people (including Mike Pence) to stop certification. Denied due to lack of evidence; completely unconstitutional.
39. Stop counting due to use of illegal drop-boxes. Denied; ruled moot.
40. Same as #30.
41. Trump sued Biden to overturn absentee votes cast against state laws (must receive written application, must have address on ballot, improper claims of indefinite confinement.) Denied; can't grant relief.

New Mexico
42. Trump sued over illegal ballot drop-boxes after certification. Lawsuit withdrawn.

Additional SCOTUS
43. SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on appeal of #4, preventing reversal of Pennsylvania supreme court's decision.
44. Similar case brought by Republicans in North Carolina was denied 5-3 by SCOTUS because .
45. Republicans in Wisconsin sued to prevent extension of deadline to receive mail-in ballots. Granted 5-3 by SCOTUS.
46. Republicans in Texas sued to throw out ballots cast in drive-thru polling sites, arguing law restricted it to those with disabilities. Denied without comment, but votes segregated instead.

47. (There are lawsuits not listed by the article. Republicans sued Allegheny county in Pennsylvania over transparency in re-sending 29K corrected ballots. It was settled out of court, resulting in the ballots being set aside.)

That's 8/23 = 35% of Trump campaign cases thrown out on lack of evidence. (If we throw in former Trump attorney Sidney Powell's suits here, we get 12/27 = 44%. Article didn't clarify which ones were made before or after firing.)
In total, 16/48 = 33% cases lacking evidence. (48th is #4b. Numbers might shift a bit if you decide to combine re-litigation of the same lawsuit. Notably #31 and #32 are the same.)

[Bumber]

Your boy is a conman, likely a criminal, and a would be tyrant. [...]

What a cute way to deflect from the fact that you got called out on posting misinformation about what he said on the phone call. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Starver]

What a cute way to deflect from the fact that you got called out on posting misinformation about what he said on the phone call. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nothing you said led to that. I also decided I couldn't reasonably (i.e politely) call you out on your last assertion to me that you proved what you thought you proved. I had multiple attempts not to be (IMO, justifiably) condescending/worse and decided to not send any. I like you as a contributor, and particularly one of those who are probably truly invaluable on the upper-forums, I can't believe you're being deliberately provocative.

I've seen you're doubling-down (...I hate that phrase) on your interpretation, and I don't like how "everyone vs. you" this place may have become, maybe as a classical "elite liberal echo-chamber", but you can surely see your own deflections and selectiveness. You're at least as deeply entrenched on your side of No Man's Land as we (a loose coallition, at best) may be on ours.

Your country (far more so than the world, even) is obviously so much deeply divided over his legacy, as they were over his actuality and (before that) his potential. I'm not sure how these two (or more) camps can be reconciled, or even if they all would want to be. I'm not going to suggest you "suck it up" (as some did when the power was the other way) or leave the country (ditto, but now with fewer options, even ignoring the current global health situation). And heads don't need to be bashed on walls, really. Even if I did often felt like doing that to myself when I was watching the prior spectacle unfolding. Trust me, it's a bemusing path to take, at best.

[nenjin]

I enjoy watching people throw away everything worthwhile for the sake of victory.

[Andux]

Your boy is a conman, likely a criminal, and a would be tyrant. [...]

What a cute way to deflect from the fact that you got called out on posting misinformation about what he said on the phone call. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bumber, how do you think criminals operate? Does a mobster come straight out and say, "Pay me or I burn your building down," or do they couch that idea in less explicit terms (e.g., "Nice place you got here; shame if anything were to happen to it.")? We have testimony from Michael Cohen that Trump operates the same way, trying to create plausible deniability; he never explicitly asks subordinates to break the law for him, but strongly implies that, hey, it sure would be nice if maybe somebody could make this thing go away, you know?

So let's imagine, hypothetically, that we have a wannabe-mobster president who lost a key state by several thousand votes; he calls up the secretary of state, hoping to get him to throw out enough (lawfully-cast) ballots to swing the election. Now, supposing that he wants to maintain a degree of plausible deniability in the event the conversation leaks, what do you imagine that conversation might look like?

[Duuvian]

Your boy is a conman, likely a criminal, and a would be tyrant. [...]

What a cute way to deflect from the fact that you got called out on posting misinformation about what he said on the phone call. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lol this guy here

I think you are referring to calling what Trump did on the phonecall election fraud and a crime. Where you might have me is I haven't gone through Federal statutes to see if it "should" apply under the exact circumstances. That of course is entirely different than "will" or "does", because this is America dammit and he's a billionaire Republican ex-president and quite realistically a combination possibly above the law forever and always.

Regardless what he did exactly fits the non-US Statute definition of what I said he did. That's not misinformation, that's at worst not doing the work to make sure in 100% of all possible meanings of the words I used (in this case the legal sense) an alternate realitist won't find the narrowest of avenues to dispute what is plain to the majority they are struggling to convince. I apologize to you for not treating an internet forums with the requisite choice of words usually reserved for a courtroom. Hey at least I don't have to do that kind of work with the choices I've made regarding politics, that's lookin' at the bright side

EDIT: What percentage of those lawsuits were GRANTED?

EDIT2: I could edit out the words "crimes of" in this sentence here if you would like, Bumber

Trump has even also been recorded soliciting 11,780 crimes of voter fraud on his own behalf to a state official.

It wouldn't change the meaning all that much though unless we ignore that voter fraud is usually illegal, and assume that he managed to tread carefully enough to navigate both State and Federal statutes thoughout that whole drunken/steroid induced angry rant. A better reading might be to add the word 'potential' crimes as IRC he's under investigation in Georgia for exactly what I said but that might not be good enough for some who think he can do no wrong and has divine powers beyond ordinary ken or some shit. Actually, you are right, that would have been the right way to type it since it hasn't been through a court yet if ever, just said things that appear to be criminal.  So as I said I can correct the sentence to avoid an extreme standard for 'misinformation' but it won't change much of what the sentence says.

Now, I'm not going to look up statutes and precedents for this. I was going to complain about the statistics of cases dismissed for lack of evidence as a red hering but then I re-read what you replied to and it's a reasonable rebuttal in form to that. Were those instances of lack of evidence summary dismissalss? I think summary dismissals are usually pre-trial but it might vary by jurisdiction when they are allowed I dunno. Anyways though the point was that it would be the % GRANTED out of the total number FILED to give a quick glance at how that worked out in the courts as those would be by necessity decided by the merits of the evidence rather than a lack of it; and I couldn't find the % after a quick search while not caring enough to look for base figures and do basic math.

The reason you wouldn't want to ONLY compare the lawsuits decided on the merits percentage of GRANTED vs DENIED/DISMISSED is because if you ignore pre-trial dismissals it will inflate the percentage of the winning lawsuits and make it sound more justified. Winning 5/20 sounds better than winning 5/100 for made up example. Judging from a quick search in researching this post, this was a tactic (some?) conservative news sites used to inflate the courtroom winning rate: by only comparing lawsuits that were decided on the merits, for the Trumpeted calculation the public was intended to consider, ignoring those suits thrown out for various of reasons. Likely this was an attempt to enrage those who are not versed in court procedure by proclaiming a high win rate.

That's just a guess though based off one internet search, no promises

[Bumber]

Nothing you said led to that. I also decided I couldn't reasonably (i.e politely) call you out on your last assertion to me that you proved what you thought you proved. I had multiple attempts not to be (IMO, justifiably) condescending/worse and decided to not send any. I like you as a contributor, and particularly one of those who are probably truly invaluable on the upper-forums, I can't believe you're being deliberately provocative.

You're inserting yourself into other people's conversations and then getting upset from the inevitable confusion. You said this of my reply to None:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

How many countless thousands would you keep from voting out of spite to stop these 544 votes?

False dilemma.

Can't argue with you, because I don't even know what you're saying/think you're saying. What exactly do you consider false?

I didn't actually give you a reply on this. A "false dilemma" is a logical fallacy creating a false choice between two options. You can allow "544" fraudulent votes OR you can disenfranchise "countless thousands" of voters. It does not consider the possibility for preventing fraud while also making sure legitimate votes can cast their votes.

You also inserted yourself into my conversation with Duuvian:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Trump has even also been recorded soliciting 11,780 crimes of voter fraud on his own behalf to a state official.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-georgia-call-transcript.html

All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Nice try. He's talking about finding invalid votes to throw out:

But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren’t even signed, and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find, you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt, and so is she, totally corrupt.

I went through the whole transcript on this page back in January. I color coded everything relating to finding votes red.

I don't think he cared whether the votes were added or subtracted to the appropriate side and that's a silly defense to make anyways. "He did it but not in the way you claim!"

There's a world of difference between asking someone to count illegal votes versus throw illegal votes out. I'm not sure how much clearer I can summarize it then, "There was massive fraud, prove 11,780 instances of it so I win."

I can summarize it than, "There was massive fraud, prove 11,780 instances of it so I win."

Quote some credible (unproven, maybe, but not disproven) assertion that he made that got anywhere close to realistically postulating the volume necessary for that figure. (Pure self delusion, or at best wishful thinking, doesn't count.)

I actually replied to you on this one, saying: "I don't need to show that to prove what he was asking for."

That is, I'm not trying to prove the claim that "there were 11,780 instances of fraud". I'm disproving Duuvian's claim that "Trump was soliciting 11,780 crimes of voter fraud" in his phone call.

The out of context quote "I just want to find 11,780 votes" implies that Trump is asking Raffensperger to conjure up illegitimate votes marked for Trump, which would be very illegal.

In context, Trump is asking Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes" that went to Biden but were fraudulent and should not be counted. That's perfectly legal if (hypothetically) there are 11,780 fraudulent votes and Raffensperger throws them out, netting Trump a win. It's also perfectly legal if (more likely) there aren't 11,780 votes and Raffensperger doesn't throw out any legal votes.

It's difficult to prove Trump is asking Raffensperger to throw out legal votes when looking at the full context of the call. Thus, Duuvian's assertion that Trump "did it [fraud] but not in the way you claim!" is dubious, and it does in fact matter whether the votes were "added or subtracted to the appropriate side".

Instead of responding to this, Duuvian goes on a tangent about "my boy" being a conman, criminal, tyrant, etc., which earns him my flippant remark.

I hope that clears things up.

[Bumber]

I could edit out the words "crimes of" in this sentence here if you would like, Bumber

Trump has even also been recorded soliciting 11,780 crimes of voter fraud on his own behalf to a state official.

It wouldn't change the meaning all that much though unless we ignore that voter fraud is usually illegal, [...]

No, I think your premise is flawed. Throwing out fraudulent ballots isn't voter fraud. If that's all he's asking, then he's not soliciting voter fraud.

If you want to allege the whole call is "throw out these 'fraudulent' ballots *wink wink*", then that's a valid position. It's harder to prove than just taking a quote out of context, however.

Now, supposing that he wants to maintain a degree of plausible deniability in the event the conversation leaks, what do you imagine that conversation might look like?

I'd imagine there'd be a bit more emphasis on just throwing out ballots because the fraudulent ones are mixed in with them. I'm not a legal expert, though.


Also, to reiterate on the Trump lawsuits: I'm not claiming there's anything near enough to net Trump a victory there. I'm just saying that there wasn't as much investigation into possible fraud as losing all those cases would imply.

Ted Cruz, IIRC, said he would object to certification unless he was promised an audit to settle things once and for all. He got labeled a traitor to the nation for that, even though Democrats objected to certification of Trump and Bush for less. I don't think Ted Cruz was making an unreasonable ask, given the state of things. An audit wouldn't have hurt as far as healing the division.

[Duuvian]

So what were the EXPERTS on the phone telling him? Is he still ignorant at that point? Or soliciting voter fraud? Why should they suffer from less credibility than him, the benefactor.

In context, Trump is asking Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes" that went to Biden but were fraudulent and should not be counted. That's perfectly legal if (hypothetically) there are 11,780 fraudulent votes and Raffensperger throws them out, netting Trump a win. It's also perfectly legal if (more likely) there aren't 11,780 votes and Raffensperger doesn't throw out any legal votes.

Uhuh nope solicitation is a real thing where no one has to do anything illegal, merely request/discuss it. It is like a modifier added to other crimes and usually treated with significantly lower penalties than the solicited criminal act. In no way did Trump meet the Withdrawal defense standard for Solicitation, which requires:

A: notification of law enforcement of the solicitation (the Federal statute accepts stopping of the crime solicited but generally this is how I think outside of action movies)
B: Notification to the other party that a person is withdrawing the solicitation.

It's unclear IIRC whether the pathways these notifications take are set in stone or if they are more loosely defined as "defendant was very confident as a rational person the notification would arrive where required".

This is known as a withdrawal or renunciation (varies from place to place) defense to solicitation.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1091-affirmative-defense-solicitation-renunciation

1091. Affirmative Defense to Solicitation-- Renunciation

Section 373(b) provides for an affirmative defense of renunciation. The defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he/she voluntarily and completely abandoned his/her criminal intent and that he/she actually prevented the commission of the crime solicited. To be voluntary and complete, the renunciation must not be motivated by a decision to postpone the crime or substitute another victim or objective. In addition, the defendant must actually prevent the crime; a mere effort or attempt to prevent the crime is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the defense.

Other than that, the solicitation is committed once the words are shared between two or more people.

Thus, he doesn't actually have to commit voter fraud himself... just talk about it with someone else

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1089-first-amendment-implications
1089. First Amendment Implications

The legislative history of the solicitation statute makes clear that it is the inducement of criminal activity that is prohibited, and not mere advocacy of ideas. It states:

    [W]hile the section [373] rests primarily on words of instigation to crime, the Committee wishes to make clear that what is involved is legitimately proscribable criminal activity, not advocacy of ideas that is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.

So I guess it boils down to whether the prosecutors in Georgia think they can convict on what Trump said, and if what he asked to happen was illegal. Since it meets the definition of voting fraud and that's illegal we must look to criminal intent. It would appear both solicitation and and election fraud are specific intent crimes, which does benefit Trump using the ignorance defense. However I'm not convinced the court system would be pleased to allow such a loophole in this instance when they have such tape.

Also I'm not sure that quote was out of context. He was asking the state official to commit voter fraud. The state official rebuffed him. I'd have to read it again and I'm not, but I'm pretty clear in remembering that the other participants on the phone call informed him that he was wrong about what he was saying. Y'know, the exact experts he should have asked WERE informing him he was wrong. They would make excellent EXPERT WITNESSES.

Not through going to the courts and asking for a court order. This was the most powerful human we know of on a phone call pressuring a minor official who may have nonetheless had the powers to perform this act for him unilaterally and unlawfully.

That said I'm for criminal justice reform so I'm not cheering here. I don't want him to go to prison but I would very much like it if he was barred from political office.

[Bumber]

So what were the EXPERTS on the phone telling him? Is he still ignorant at that point? Or soliciting voter fraud?

Trump doesn't believe experts.

Uhuh nope solicitation is a real thing where no one has to do anything illegal, merely request/discuss it.

I think the message also has to be understood by the other party. IIRC, Raffensperger said later that he didn't feel threatened or that he was being asked to do anything illegal. He said that Trump was just plain wrong on his assertions.