You keep going to history, legality and proof.  

I'm more interested in prevention.  

I don't want to have the house burn down to prove that fire insurance is a good idea.  

I want to keep the house from buring down in the first place.

Some of us are more affected than others.  

If I earn $300k and pay $60k in total taxes i am more affected than someone who earns $30k and gets $5k from the gov't.  

Since I'm more affected, shouldn't I have more of a say?

Wouldn't a better answer be, because you aren't a citizen of this school district [city, county, state, fire district.....] and the rule of law in this country only citizens vote [just like you must have reached the age of majority to vote].  If they are here legally, they can gain citizenship.  If they are here illegally then they shouldn't be here.  If they aren't honoring the laws of our land, why should they have input?

Well, we should pass a law that says it's illegal for illegal aliens to vote. Oh wait, that's already illegal.

Here's an idea. Let's gin up fear and outrage over something that isn't really a problem. Sure, it won't solve anything, but maybe it will fire up the people who we want to come out to the polls.

First, my comment stipulated LEGAL residents. But I also didn't say they should. I simply said I couldn't come up for a good reason why a legal immigrant alien shouldn't be allowed to vote in a local election (again, we're only talking about local elections). Apparently, the answer is "because that's the law."

Why does a gun barrel have to be 16 inches long and not 14 inches? Because that's the law. Can you offer a good explanation for WHY that's the law? No? I can't either. See how that works?

You keep ONLY focusing on illegal aliens voting.  It isn't the BIG issue.  Overall voter [potential] fraud is.  

Can you agree that having insurance in case your house catches on fire is a good idea?

I already submitted a reply to this, your question.

You also didn't reply to my observation that some of us are more affected by Gov't so shouldn't those more affected have a greater say in what Gov't is/does?

Of course not.

the meaning of 'Of course":  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=meaning+of+of+course&t=brave&ia=web

adverb
Indicates enthusiastic agreement.
Acknowledges the validity of the associated phrase.
Asserts that the associated phrase should not be argued, particularly if it is obvious or there is no choice in the matter.

When the exact opposite is this case, unless you are implying total agreement with my observation?

I thought we addressed your insurance analogy. You buy insurance to mitigate risk. Not all risks are equal, and not all require insurance.  At my home, I buy homeowner's insurance to cover likely risks. I also pay extra for earthquake coverage. Given that I live in Missouri, the site of some of the strongest earthquakes in North American history, it seems prudent to purchase the earthquake rider. I do not pay for additional flood insurance, though. Why? Because my home is located high above the flood plain. Even though the potential consequences of a flood at my home could be very high, the risk of that actually happening are extremely low (We'd be talking Noah's Ark).

But let's go with your insurance thing. If the United States were to buy election fraud insurance, how costly would it be? Probably not very costly at all. Why? Because although the POSSIBLE consequences of widespread election fraud is high, the likelihood of election fraud impacting our elections in any meaningful way is quite low. An actuarial analysis done of our elections would show that the history of meaningful voter fraud is minimal at best, our system is well-protected from fraud and there are sufficient obstacles to any serious effort to undermine our elections. Therefore, low risk.

The fact of the matter is we already have election fraud insurance. We have laws against election fraud. We still have news organizations that live for covering scandal. We elect our election officials (county clerks and secretaries of state) so that they remain accountable to the people. As has been mentioned previously, nearly all of the election officials in Missouri are Republicans. How much more "insurance" do you want?

Can we be honest for a moment? "Election integrity" wouldn't even be a topic if Donald Trump didn't have a fragile ego. He made election fraud a thing because it was easier for him than admitting he's a "LOSER!" Hell, he even said "The Apprentice" didn't win an Emmy because the process was rigged. Don't kid yourself. Elections are only suspect when Donald Trump loses. Ask any of the Republicans in Missouri's legislative super majority if they won through election fraud. I bet none of the Republicans who hold every statewide office in Missouri think they got elected through fraud.

Are you confident about those counties controlled by Democrats?  See 67 T'bird's post above

I am not.

Do you disagree that the DOJ has been weaponized by Democrats against Trump [hell, I don't even like him]?  Do you disagree that the Democrats [and most Republicans] violate the Federal constitution at this point?  Do you disagree that MO Republicans [especially the Senate at the state level] are doing the bidding of lobbists and handlers and not the people?  What a cluster f^*$ they made of IP [non]reform.

I want insurance that isn't issued by the corrupt.  The corrupt don't do what is right, only what benefits them.

Both of you should feel bad.

Some union sent election junk mail to a mail list of its 500,000 members. Some of the union members on that mail list are non-citizen but legal migrant workers who are not eligible to vote. Nobody registered anyone. Nobody voted. It's not even clear that the (unnamed) business owner even passed the mailers onto his employees.

Junk mail. That's the smoking gun. Please. Think.


FWIW, here's the news report:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/non-u-citizens-receive-mailers-033150036.html

The story has been updated with a response from the union that sent out the mailer:

I'm willing to confess suspicions and doubt regarding federal elections going back to at least 1992.

The Ross Perot "spoiler" effect distracted people enough that very few expressed knowledge or concern that Clinton "won" with less than a 50% majority.

I know this is how it works with the electoral system, but I think the 1992 war gaming for how to manipulate voting and reporting of results was setting the stage for the manipulations and misrepresentation we see today.

It's very concerning to me that we can be collectively convinced that these election margins are so dramatically close, in so many of the races.  And in THE critical precincts on which the entire election hinges.

If it was a fluke in one election in ten, ok.

But it's happening every time.

Doesn't compute statistically.

Here's an experiment. Instead of tossing all the election mailers you get this week directly in the trash, go ahead and look at them. How many of the senders of that junk mail do you think actually vetted you? Just because you're on their mail list doesn't mean they know anything about you.

The greatest danger to any given election is stupid voters. I’d be in favor of including three, simple, test questions on each ballot.  If you fail the test, then your ballot gets thrown out because your ignorance is detrimental to society.

Question 1:  Who was president during the Grant administration?

Question 2: How many US Senators does your state have?

Question 3: Who is the current vice president?

If you can’t answer all three, then you shouldn’t be voting.

Apparently, citizenship is not a requirement for union membership. l imagine they're also sending mailers to other people who are ineligible for voting (criminal convictions, etc.). I think it's unreasonable to expect an organization sending out a mailer to 500,000 people to search their mail list with a fine-tooth comb to weed out anyone who the mailer might not apply to.

This story is a huge nothing burger. Just another outrage dejour to wind people up. Such is the nature of our current political environment.

I don't think the integrity of elections in our country is a nothing burger. And you can say illegal aliens aren't voting and it's not a problem. That may or may not be true at this moment, but how long do you think 15 to 20 million (or more because no one knows for sure) people living in this country will be denied from voting in all of our elections. It's a process. First bring in the bodies, any bodies, give them things that they have never had in their countries so they will be indebted to the persons giving them these things, be they from South America, Africa, Asia or wherever. Then start the legal arguments that it's unfair to have them living here without being able to vote and get every benefit that every American citizen is entitled to. And if the courts don't go your way, just pack the Supreme court until you get your way.  This is the long game for the Dems. There's no other reasonable explanation for what they have been doing at the border.

Now we can have a debate on whether or not we should just welcome everyone from the rest of the world to come live here. After all, we're all immigrants, right? And it's what Jesus would do (that's a good one). How about bringing anyone that is unhappy with their lives in Africa or Syria or India or ? to come share our bounty here in the good old USA. Ever see what happens when you try to fit 100 people in a lifeboat made for 10? Everybody drowns. Do you know why a growing number of Hispanics are moving towards supporting Trump? Because they're smart enough to know that if you keep letting everyone from everywhere into this country with no vetting and no limits, pretty soon you'll have the exact same problems here that they tried to get away from in their home countries. Exhibit A is the rise of Venezuelan gangs in this country.

I agree that the biggest problem we have with elections in this country is uninformed and apathetic voters. But we also have devious and dishonest politicians that love that and use every conceivable means, both legal and illegal to take advantage of the situation and advance their own power no matter what in does to the country.

I don't feel bad in the least.  Illegal aliens aren't my only [or major] concern.  Corruption is.  

Don't you feel naive?  

Hoping that proven, corrupt individuals are in charge will do the right thing when experience shows they won't.  

Maybe not, but this union mailer scandal is definitely a nothing burger.

Where/what is the corruption in a mass mailing of a postcard?

Seriously, you don’t feel bad that you fell for manufactured outrage?

You are a master of ignoring the elephant and focusing on the mouse.  

many/most politicians are corrupt.  That is self evident.  Even a large minority is too many.  

I don't give a rip about postcards.  I don't give a rip about them being sent to illegal aliens [but I care greatly that they are here in the first place [and one point of evidence of the corruption of the political class].  

I don't trust people who have proven themselves untrustworthy.  I don't want them manipulating the voting process/system.  

If you don't have a concern about the high probability that corrupt individuals will skew results, given the chance, you are naive.  I don't want to give them the chance.    

My son lives in Chicago, 4 years ago, in August [before early voting had started in ILL] I asked my son who he was going to vote for in the election.  His reply: "Dad, I live in Chicago, I'm pretty sure I've already voted".   JFK joked one time 'my dad said he'd buy me the election, but he wasn't going to pay for a landslide'.  It is a known that Chicago and Dallas were the two cities that elected JFK.

REALLY??? Do you not remember the 2016 election? Hillary still hasn't admitted she lost and to this day shouts that her presidency was stolen. This, from the person that orchestrated the entire Russia collusion hoax and ran arguably the most profitable money laundering operation that ever existed, the Clinton foundation.

It's true Clinton said there were issues with the 2016 election, but there's several big differences. For one, she conceded in the hours after the election. She wished Trump well and attended his inauguration. She never launched a bunch of frivolous lawsuits trying to overturn the election. She didn't organize fake electors or try to switch the electoral college vote at the last possible minute. She also didn't call for a mob to come to D.C.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/politifactwisconsin/2024/05/31/eric-hovde-claims-clinton-said-2016-election-was-stolen-can-it-be-compared-to-2020/73906167007/




But beyond that, Trump has a long history of blaming defeat on a rigged process. As I mentioned, he said "The Apprentice" didn't win an Emmy because award was rigged.  WHen Cruz beat him in a primary, the election was rigged. His trials were rigged. It's his go-to excuse. It's become comical.

100+ pages of election shenanigans.
If you’re brave enough, go to the last 15 or so pages and start refuting.

The fact that none of the N_T ers have stepped up is very telling.

Jump in there bladeswitcher.

Put up or shut up.

If I wanted to play Whack-a-Mole, I'd go to the carnival.

You know Bladeswitcher, you're obviously a pretty sharp guy who does his research and intelligently explains his point of view. I almost never agree with you, but I've always thought you were someone who could be reasoned with. But on this, I have to say, you have drunk the koolaide my friend. I was never big on Trump. I voted for Cruz in the 2016 primary. I was hoping Desantis would do better than he did in this election. But I have to admit that Trump did put very competent people in charge of his cabinet to run this country and did a surprisingly good job overall. And for his service, he had the FBI lie to FISA judges to obtain illegal search warrants and entrap his choice for national security advisor, launch what they knew was a false investigation into his campaign, impeach him twice on ridiculous charges, use every media outlet on the face of the earth to ridicule him, use the intelligence community to lie about a laptop from hell just before the election, use emergency rules against standing state laws to change election laws during the pandemic resulting in very questionable results, withhold national guard troops he authorized to keep the peace on January 6th and then appoint a special counsel to prosecute him when it went south, despite the fact he asked for a calm and peaceful protest, use local and DOJ prosecutors to indict and prosecute him on laughable charges with no victims, and then failed to provide adequate secret service protection when there were numerous substantiated threats on his life (including from the nation of Iran) resulting in him being shot and nearly killed.  

I know that's the longest run-on sentence ever, but the sad truth is, those are only the highlights of the crap this guy has had to endure for the crime of wanting to be president. You can try and paint him as a criminal. Good luck with that. The guy in there now is the criminal. Millions of dollars of foreign money laundered through shell companies to his family. It is truly astounding that anyone with an IQ in three digits can support the Democratic party at this point. But that's what happens when the media becomes a propaganda machine and people are too lazy or stupid to see the truth.

Uh… huh.

Not one of you suspected plants will touch it, but Whack everywhere else.

A couple of points in response, and then I'm done with this part of the discussion. Please note, I'm responding to your post but what I'm going to say applies to others as well. In some cases it may apply more to them than to you :

I try not to engage in personal discussions. I generally avoid characterizing the person making an argument (sometimes I slip, but I try). If you can back up your view with evidence and sources, I will discuss your evidence and sources. I will not (again, try not to) turn the discussion into a discussion about YOU. I also don't respond to personal characterizations. Once anyone's argument devolves to "YOU this" or "YOU that" I'm done. If a person can't engage in a conversation without making it personal, I'm not interested.

I generally don't think it's useful to refute or counter someone's OPINION. If I don't accept your facts or sources as compelling, I'll tell you why. If I don't agree with your logic I may point out what I see are the flaws. If you ask a question I think merits an answer, I'll try to respond. But I always try to remember (again, try) that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's the ideal anyway. Sometimes I do get caught up in the moment.

Nothing you wrote in defense about Trump addresses what I said about him. I didn't say anything about his policies or the success or failure of his administration. What I actually said was Trump appears to have a fragile ego and that it's only because he can't accept loss (a loss that has been thoroughly reviewed by courts and election authorities) that there's so much emphasis on election integrity. When you responded with Hillary's resentment about 2016 the smart thing for me to have said would have been something like "We're not talking about election fraud because Hillary raised the issue." Instead, I engaged in the direction you took it, which was the whataboutism. That was probably a mistake.

BTW, I don't agree with a lot of what you wrote about Trump and I believe I could effectively counter most of it, but what's the point? Am I going to change your mind? In my experience, that's unlikely, so why bother? I don't care how anyone votes.

Anyway, you and others are taking this discussion in a direction I'm not comfortable with. I'll probably take a bit more care how I respond going forward.

It's impossible to win that game. I'm quite confident that whatever smoking gun you could produce has been discussed elsewhere. If you believe corrupt election officials in North Dakota gathered fraudulent ballots from wandering gypsies (I'm making that up), then google it and read EVERYTHING you can about it. Weigh what the the conspiracy proponents claim against media coverage and the official responses from election authorities. Keep an open mind and use logic. Apply a healthy dose of skepticism. I trust that you'll discover there's not much if anything to the "evidence."

Been there, done that.

That seems odd. You post a lot about Missouri politics and have an extensive knowledge of state processes. It seems like you do care, and that's not a bad thing. Because if you really don't care, what's the point of the time spent?

I guess I just enjoy the sport, but I like the game much more than the players. Honestly, neither team has earned my loyalty.

That's one answer. The other answer is for most of my life I have worked in jobs that required at least the appearance of non-partisanship. I've never had the luxury of taking sides. What I have done professionally is present information. Generally, that's what I try to do in my politics threads. I guess I suffer from the delusion that people might benefit from it.

It's just crazy how NO ONE jumps into that thread to dispute what's happening.  There's always an excuse and then an attempt to flip the tables.

Yeah, I can't believe my lying eyes.  Uh...huh.

FWIW, here are a few websites that provide information about the various lawsuits related to the 2020 election. Anyone is free to dig in and form their own conclusions. As a practical matter, what you or I think really doesn't matter. The courts have decided:

https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords=&status=all&state=all&topic=25

https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/litigation/

https://lostnotstolen.org/

I'll just tell you that I enjoy the polite conversation from you, it's a rarity these days.

I only pretend to be polite on the Internet. In real life, I'm a jerk.