Election Integrity

[Offthemat]

42 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

mostly, the fact that for three hours he refused pleas from his most inner circle to call them off,

The timelines I’ve seen show 2 hours between the end of his speech and his “No violence!” tweet, and different accounts of activities during the time span.  If we’re trying to be accurate. 

[WrestlingRasta]

13 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The timelines I’ve seen show 2 hours between the end of his speech and his “No violence!” tweet, and different accounts of activities during the time span.  If we’re trying to be accurate. 

I wasn’t there with him during the event, so I’m just going by the sworn testimony of the rather large number of people in his inner circle, including members of his family, who were present with him during the event.  Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.  

[Offthemat]

51 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe

And display all the TDS they want. 

[WrestlingRasta]

43 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

And display all the TDS they want. 

Hahaha, and there it is, the reliable safe space.  
 

Good talkin to ya, as always. 

[mspart]

I put up a hypothetical election scenario and invited folks to chime in on the best way to secure such an election.   I did not see anyone respond.   

So I'll ask again but use real world example.   

How do we secure and provide assurance that the election is secure for the next presidential election?  80% of the electorate are for voter ID so this is an issue that is on the minds of 4 of 5 people, so it is an important question.   Please share your thoughts.  

mspart

 

[Simpleman424]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I wasn’t there with him during the event, so I’m just going by the sworn testimony of the rather large number of people in his inner circle, including members of his family, who were present with him during the event.  Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.  

Yea I mean timelines aside that vary I mean I don’t even doubt just human nature coming into play and him saying/thinking “Ok turn down my multiple request for increased security…I’ll wait a little bit”. Because let’s be honest they turned down those request because they wanted something to happen so they could finish off his career…or so they thought. He thought he had something in his pocket…they thought they had something in theirs and the American people lost. I’m not saying it’s right but this is a very complicated situation and what information was shared when…eh.

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Yea I mean timelines aside that vary I mean I don’t even doubt just human nature coming into play and him saying/thinking “Ok turn down my multiple request for increased security…I’ll wait a little bit”. Because let’s be honest they turned down those request because they wanted something to happen so they could finish off his career…or so they thought. He thought he had something in his pocket…they thought they had something in theirs and the American people lost. I’m not saying it’s right but this is a very complicated situation and what information was shared when…eh.

That had been debunked by then sec of defense Chris Miller, as well as investigations conducted by military leadership.  Pence also stated, under penalty of perjury, he implored the President to call in assistance on that day, to no avail, and he had to do it himself.  

[WrestlingRasta]

21 minutes ago, mspart said:

I put up a hypothetical election scenario and invited folks to chime in on the best way to secure such an election.   I did not see anyone respond.   

So I'll ask again but use real world example.   

How do we secure and provide assurance that the election is secure for the next presidential election?  80% of the electorate are for voter ID so this is an issue that is on the minds of 4 of 5 people, so it is an important question.   Please share your thoughts.  

mspart

 

Proof of citizenship upon registration; voter registration accompanied by valid ID at the polling station; and limiting who can vote by mail would be a good foundation.  That said, I don’t think you will ever be able to completely eliminate vote fraud, just like you won’t be able to completely eliminate financial fraud, bank robberies, or illegal drug use.  Shady people are gonna do shady things. 

Edited July 20 by WrestlingRasta

[Gene Mills Fan]

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Proof of citizenship upon registration; voter registration accompanied by valid ID at the polling station; and limiting who can vote by mail would be a good foundation.  That said, I don’t think you will ever be able to completely eliminate vote fraud, just like you won’t be able to completely eliminate financial fraud, bank robberies, or illegal drug use.  Shady people are gonna do shady things. 

Just asking: the vote fraud you say is inherent?  is it just negligible? or there is just no quantifying it?

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Just asking: the vote fraud you say is inherent?  is it just negligible? or there is just no quantifying it?

81 million votes, my ass.

[WrestlingRasta]

10 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Just asking: the vote fraud you say is inherent?  is it just negligible? or there is just no quantifying it?

Kind of a loaded question:

Inherent: I mean I guess, in the sense that, like I said above, shady people are going to do shady things.  So just like there’s always going to be attempts at bank fraud, bank robberies, drug use…yes there’s always going to be attempts at voter fraud. 
 

Negligible: should it just be ignored and not worried about.  Of course not.  Do I believe it is at such a high level it is deciding elections?  I do not.  I will say, I do not believe the elections of 2016, 2020, or 2024 were rigged or stolen by either party. 
 

Quantifying: to an exact number, probably not.   To raise reasonable suspicion if an election was rigged or stolen, probably. 

[Offthemat]

35 minutes ago, mspart said:

I put up a hypothetical election scenario and invited folks to chime in on the best way to secure such an election.   I did not see anyone respond.   

So I'll ask again but use real world example.   

How do we secure and provide assurance that the election is secure for the next presidential election?  80% of the electorate are for voter ID so this is an issue that is on the minds of 4 of 5 people, so it is an important question.   Please share your thoughts.  

mspart

 

Pass SAVE America Act.  Vote in person one day - Election Day.  No holiday.  Minimal, highly restricted absentee ballots - must arrive in time to be counted on Election Day.  Paper ballots - hand counted.  Just like most of the other countries in the world do it when they attempt democracy. 

[mspart]

26 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Proof of citizenship upon registration; voter registration accompanied by valid ID at the polling station; and limiting who can vote by mail would be a good foundation.  That said, I don’t think you will ever be able to completely eliminate vote fraud, just like you won’t be able to completely eliminate financial fraud, bank robberies, or illegal drug use.  Shady people are gonna do shady things. 

This seems rational.   Anyone disagree?

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Pass SAVE America Act.  Vote in person one day - Election Day.  No holiday.  Minimal, highly restricted absentee ballots - must arrive in time to be counted on Election Day.  Paper ballots - hand counted.  Just like most of the other countries in the world do it when they attempt democracy. 

this also seems rational.   Anyone disagree?

If we want free and fair elections, and it would seem to me that everyone should want this, then how do we get there.   I think the above are some simple things to do for this simple problem.   It is not a complicated issue.   People have complicated it but it is a simple problem with a simple solution in my opinion.   Any other suggestions on how to make the next Presidential election fair  and free?

mspart

[1032004]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

81 million votes, my ass.

Seek help please 

[Simpleman424]

5 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That had been debunked by then sec of defense Chris Miller, as well as investigations conducted by military leadership.  Pence also stated, under penalty of perjury, he implored the President to call in assistance on that day, to no avail, and he had to do it himself.  

Debunked is a strong word for something that is still highly debated…

Testimony from Aides: Former White House officials, such as Anthony Ornato, testified that Trump informally discussed or "pushed for" having up to 10,000 National Guard troops on standby to protect Washington D.C. in the days leading up to the event. [1]

House Administration Transcripts: Transcripts released by the Committee on House Administration indicate Trump directed Pentagon leaders to ensure the events of January 6 were safe and that necessary security was in place.

The real issue is he asked (numerous times on his account and others) and basically kept getting the run around. He should have just officially gave the order but he’s out the door, he asked and was told it wasn’t necessary then fine. (At least in his mind) Also, threat of perjury or not I take Pence’s word with a grain of salt. He was right to step in, he should have…had Pelosi done what she was asked to do (informally or not) it would have never been an issue to begin with.

[Simpleman424]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

This seems rational.   Anyone disagree?

this also seems rational.   Anyone disagree?

If we want free and fair elections, and it would seem to me that everyone should want this, then how do we get there.   I think the above are some simple things to do for this simple problem.   It is not a complicated issue.   People have complicated it but it is a simple problem with a simple solution in my opinion.   Any other suggestions on how to make the next Presidential election fair  and free?

mspart

I agreed with these statements and gave them the ole Bob Dole. I would only add that I would like a better system for how we handle the popular vote and the electoral college…but I’m not sure any of us are smart enough to crack that nut.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Simpleman424 said:

Debunked is a strong word for something that is still highly debated…

Testimony from Aides: Former White House officials, such as Anthony Ornato, testified that Trump informally discussed or "pushed for" having up to 10,000 National Guard troops on standby to protect Washington D.C. in the days leading up to the event. [1]

House Administration Transcripts: Transcripts released by the Committee on House Administration indicate Trump directed Pentagon leaders to ensure the events of January 6 were safe and that necessary security was in place.

The real issue is he asked (numerous times on his account and others) and basically kept getting the run around. He should have just officially gave the order but he’s out the door, he asked and was told it wasn’t necessary then fine. (At least in his mind) Also, threat of perjury or not I take Pence’s word with a grain of salt. He was right to step in, he should have…had Pelosi done what she was asked to do (informally or not) it would have never been an issue to begin with.

It is well documented that the Speaker of the House does not have the authority to call in the National Guard to the Capitol.  For the sake of not running in circles, I think we can just agree to disagree on the President’s level of responsibility in what happened that day.    

 

1 hour ago, Simpleman424 said:

I agreed with these statements and gave them the ole Bob Dole. I would only add that I would like a better system for how we handle the popular vote and the electoral college…but I’m not sure any of us are smart enough to crack that nut.

Personally I would prefer to just do away with the electoral college. It is outdated, was simply a compromise during the initial continental Congress, when the US was 13 states and about 2 million people.  Five times the winning candidate has not had the most Americans vote for them, the last president to lose the popular vote but win the election lost the popular vote by almost three million votes.  Obviously proportional representation makes sense when it comes to Congress but I would like to see the electoral college wiped out. And I think it would advance cleaning up elections as candidates wouldn’t have to prioritizes states as much as they do now, they would have to prioritize all of America. Obviously higher populous states would still be of higher priority, but not as much as they are now.  Maybe a good compromise would be to maintain the electoral college, but not in a winner take all of the state fashion. It could also lead into a third party gaining ground as they would be in the running for some electoral votes, which they are not at all currently. 
 

 

Edited July 21 by WrestlingRasta

[Simpleman424]

7 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It is well documented that the Speaker of the House does not have the authority to call in the National Guard to the Capitol.  For the sake of not running in circles, I think we can just agree to disagree on the President’s level of responsibility in what happened that day.    

 

Personally I would prefer to just do away with the electoral college. It is outdated, was simply a compromise during the initial continental Congress, when the US was 13 states and about 2 million people.  Five times the winning candidate has not had the most Americans vote for them, the last president to lose the popular vote but win the election lost the popular vote by almost three million votes.  Obviously proportional representation makes sense when it comes to Congress but I would like to see the electoral college wiped out. And I think it would advance cleaning up elections as candidates wouldn’t have to prioritizes states as much as they do now, they would have to prioritize all of America. Obviously higher populous states would still be of higher priority, but not as much as they are now.  Maybe a good compromise would be to maintain the electoral college, but not in a winner take all of the state fashion. It could also lead into a third party gaining ground as they would be in the running for some electoral votes, which they are not at all currently. 
 

 

That’s fair enough…I have no issue agreeing to disagree. And to think people can do it in a mature manner while still not  pushing blame all one way or the other…weird.

Yea I’d have to do some research to see if/what changes have been proposed in the past but my guess is the rules of the game are set and the main players know how they can win or how they can cheat it to their advantage.

[WrestlingRasta]

24 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

That’s fair enough…I have no issue agreeing to disagree. And to think people can do it in a mature manner while still not  pushing blame all one way or the other…weird.

Yea I’d have to do some research to see if/what changes have been proposed in the past but my guess is the rules of the game are set and the main players know how they can win or how they can cheat it to their advantage.

Yeah I don’t want to come across (although I probably do) as the President is the only person holding responsibility for what happened that day.  I’ve dived into every rabbit hole imaginable on that event and there is certainly responsibility to share, in the sense of should have been more prepared (much like 911).  I just think I hold more to the President than most of our fellow conservatives. 
 

Appreciate the conversation.  These are the kinds of conversations I’m in to, they’re just hard to come by around here. Side note I’ve seen a lot of your posts on the wrestling board as well and appreciate your input.  I don’t post much on the wrestling boards but follow them.  Been heavily involved in the sport over 40 years and I guess that’s just one area of the game I’d prefer to be more on the sidelines….    
 

Have a great one. 

Edited July 21 by WrestlingRasta

[jross]

No way on popularity votes with the inconsistency in how states run the election making it even easier for the tyranny of the majority.

[Simpleman424]

4 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Yeah I don’t want to come across (although I probably do) as the President is the only person holding responsibility for what happened that day.  I’ve dived into every rabbit hole imaginable on that event and there is certainly responsibility to share, in the sense of should have been more prepared (much like 911).  I just think I hold more to the President than most of our fellow conservatives. 
 

Appreciate the conversation.  These are the kinds of conversations I’m in to, they’re just hard to come by around here. Side note I’ve seen a lot of your posts on the wrestling board as well and appreciate your input.  I don’t post much on the wrestling boards but follow them.  Been heavily involved in the sport over 40 years and I guess that’s just one area of the game I’d prefer to be more on the sidelines….    
 

Have a great one. 

Appreciate it man.

[Offthemat]

On whether the data hacked by China amounted to interference:

“The reason was simple: U.S. intelligence agencies believe the targeting and acquisition of voter registration files is an act of election interference. “Election interference is a subset of election influence targeted at the technical aspects of the election, including voter registration, casting and counting of ballots and reporting of results," an October 2020 National intelligence Council report on election interference explains.

In other words, the compromising of election voter registration data, is, by the definition of intelligence agencies, an act of election interference.”

and how the same evidence is differently depending on who it’s being reported to:

“Nothing had changed. The voter data was known by frontline analysts to have been compromised the year before and was continuing. But all of a sudden, the language changed, a dynamic captured in this gem of an email from a top intelligence expert on election cyberactivities.

"Take a minute a read through this report," an intelligence officer wrote on Dec. 23, 2021. "It cites some of the same intel and logic used in 2020 to say that these same units were not engaged in election influence but were instead only issue focused, to now argue that China IS influencing the [redacted election."]

The intelligence community knew in 2020 that China had illicitly obtained voter files. They knew such an act met the definition of "election interference." They just suppressed it.”

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/us-intel-views-targeting-voter-data-election-interference-trump-claimed-memos

 

Edited July 21 by Offthemat

[mspart]

13 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Personally I would prefer to just do away with the electoral college. It is outdated, was simply a compromise during the initial continental Congress, when the US was 13 states and about 2 million people.  Five times the winning candidate has not had the most Americans vote for them, the last president to lose the popular vote but win the election lost the popular vote by almost three million votes.  Obviously proportional representation makes sense when it comes to Congress but I would like to see the electoral college wiped out. And I think it would advance cleaning up elections as candidates wouldn’t have to prioritizes states as much as they do now, they would have to prioritize all of America. Obviously higher populous states would still be of higher priority, but not as much as they are now.  Maybe a good compromise would be to maintain the electoral college, but not in a winner take all of the state fashion. It could also lead into a third party gaining ground as they would be in the running for some electoral votes, which they are not at all currently. 
 

 

I disagree with the assertion that states would get greater priority from candidates, if that is what you are saying.  D candidates will concentrate on the big cities, R candidates on the rest of the country.   A few big cities could direct the affairs of the country if not for the electoral college and that was the concern of the Founders.   With that, candidates have to hit all the states.   Hillary ignored WI to her everlasting regret.   

On another note, I do not like the winner take all idea for electoral college votes.   I think it should be by district like NE does it.   You win in a congressional district, you get that electoral vote.   That seems fair to me and what the Founders were aiming at in principle.   

On another another note, I think mail in ballots should have a due date before the election.   Here in WA, it is all mail in ballot.   We don't get election results for 4-6 weeks.   That's ridiculous.   All kinds of shenanigans can happen with that, and I believe have.   The mail in ballot should be due one week before the general election.   Drop boxes for mail in ballots can be due day of election.   If you are going to have mail in voting, then they should be into the collection spot by election day so they can be counted on election day.   We used to have that, and now with all the technology, we are the laughing stock of the world because we don't know the results of elections until a month later.   Ridiculous.  

mspart

[JimmySpeaks]

The electoral college is an important part of the checks and balances system that is America. Refine it, sure, eliminate it, no thanks.  We’re a Republic which people seem to forget.  

Edited July 21 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

I completed the 2020 US census on my IPhone.  If it was safe enough six plus years ago to use technology for deciding the number of Representatives each state gets and to distribute billions of dollars in federal funding why couldn’t it be an option to use in elections?  91% of all Americans own a Smartphone which helps the shut ins that can’t get to a voting booth, eliminates mail in voting costs, and could allow the election to be completed on Election Day.  

Edited July 21 by JimmySpeaks