Like, plus one, thumbs up, and all that!
Not to mention other injustices, like the woman who is serving a 5 year sentence for illegal voting, because she was on probation and didn’t realize that made her ineligible.
Oh, and she’s black. I don’t know why I mention that, it’s probably not relevant.
TBF that’s what I thought until I educated myself.
Defunding literally means taking some or all funding away. It does not mean reallocating a small portion to achieve better outcomes.
So the criticism rightly belongs with the people who decided to use that word.
Analogy: I do not approve of traffic fatalities, but I’ll tolerate small amounts because the cost of 100% eradication would be too high. I don’t want cops stationed every mile, I don’t want the speed limit reduced to 5mph, I don’t want licenses revoked for every minor offense. The cost is absurdly disproportionate to the benefit. If car deaths are too abstract, I’m sure you’ll have no problem applying it to gun deaths.
It’s the same with voter fraud. The numbers involved are extremely tiny. Most of the fraud cases I’ve heard of were actually Republicans, and that doesn’t bother me because the prevalence is too small to count.
If you want to intervene in that, then you need to guarantee that the impact to good-faith voters had better be pretty close to zero, and equally distributed among demographics. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Republicans want to impose on us.
Maybe that’s your definition. Mine is that analysis is detailed study of something. If you consider that opinion, then what is real?
The really sad part is, if they really did want to “secure the election” to “prevent fraud” by “requiring voter IDs”, then there are lots of well-established systems for doing that, used all over the world in major democracies like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, that don’t automatically disenfranchise huge swathes of voters.
The problem is, the Republicans don’t want to implement any of those systems, because it’s not really about having a secure election.
These systems have been explained before, but here we are, still having the same discussion again, because the USA is Special™.
Did it happen exactly once? If so, if you’re unwilling to tell us where it is, this is akin to bonkers conspiracy theories: “Bigfoot is real, and I’ve got one trapped in my garage, but damned if I’m going to let a dirty hippie like you into my house!” It has so little evidence value that it’s difficult to believe you’d bother bringing it up.
If it’s happened in more than one location, please cite a location where it happened that you don’t live.
Yes exactly. It is entirely possible that some time in the last century in one of the 3,000 counties in the US there was a elected postion/ballot measure that was decided erroneously due to an illegal vote, and I am quite sure that had a Republican election being in place would have prevented that scenario from occurring. But that is not because it would have produced the correct vote count, but because removing so many voters in the biased fashion put forward by Republicans would mean that the count would not have been remotely close.
If the problem is that a 50.01/49.99 R/D electorate split was wrongly decided as 49.98/50.02 in favor of the Democrats due to illegal voting, then the solution isn’t to eliminate enough D voters so that the result 51.5/48.5 in favor of the Republican and in the process making turning a 49/51 R/D ballot measure into a fairly solid Republican win.
Come on, we aren’t asking for your name and address here what are you afraid of? The Dopers (not dopes) fire bombing your entire county just to get to you?
It’s not just the “soccer moms”, although it’s a good placeholder for a segment of voters.
The police can be very good - in my current town we had a group of police talk down someone waving a knife around promising violence without anyone getting hurt not that long ago, and by and large community and police relations are good. But the police can also be extremely bad and that does need to be addressed. I think there are many instances were handing things off to social workers, mental health professionals, and others would work better, and I think a lot of the cops, who didn’t get into their line of work to be social workers or the like, would also prefer it. There are other people who just like having power over others.
I think it’s a complicated problem and a simple catchphrase doesn’t really capture the nuances, and I don’t think there’s a single easy answer, either.
Agreed.
It’s more how they define “secure”.
For some of us “secure” means every legal vote counted and every legal voter able to vote with all parties accepting the outcome.
For other people “secure” means “we win every time”.
That is not consistent with either of the two dictionaries I own.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
Yeah, I’m not really willing to let them go redefining terms in such a self-serving manner, even if that’s what they really mean. What they want isn’t to secure an election, they want to fix one. They’re just not honest enough to admit it.
And if it did happen exactly once, the problem is a lot smaller than Republicans are claiming.
Suspension of 1 week for D_Anconia: Your asking for citation and dismissing a range of them as some were twitter is absolutely identical to trolling. A very common trolling technique in fact. This right after the modnote for calling other posters “Dopes”. You’ve been pushing the edge of being a jerk for a long time. It is not be tolerated. When you return be less of a jerk please.
In case it needs to be added. Also consider this a thread ban. Do not return to this thread.
Hmm, maybe Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), but uh, he is still a Republican policy-wise. I think he’s against renewing the preclearance provision of the voting rights act. Still a politician, too.
~Max
They came just five Rudys short of a coup last year.
Imagine where the nation would be now, had “a Rudy” replaced Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused Trump’s order to “find” enough votes to turn his defeat in the state into a victory, wrote Rotner.
The election could have been overturned with extra Rudys in key positions in Michigan and Pennsylvania — or with a Vice President Rudy, who would simply refuse to certify the electoral votes for the people’s choice, Joe Biden, Rotner emphasized.
“Trump didn’t fail to overturn the 2020 election because our brilliantly engineered system of constitutional government held fast … He simply didn’t have the right people in the right positions to pull it off,” Rotner noted.
He won’t make the same mistake if he lands in the Oval Office again, Rotner warned. Imagine where the nation would be now, had “a Rudy” replaced Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused Trump’s order to “find” enough votes to turn his defeat in the state into a victory, wrote Rotner.
The election could have been overturned with extra Rudys in key positions in Michigan and Pennsylvania — or with a Vice President Rudy, who would simply refuse to certify the electoral votes for the people’s choice, Joe Biden, Rotner emphasized.
…He won’t make the same mistake if he lands in the Oval Office again, Rotner warned.
A Canadian political scientist warns that we may have a right wing dictatorship by 2030, if not sooner.
Trump could return to the White House and serve as “the wrecking ball that demolishes democracy” to produce “a political and social shambles,” Homer-Dixon wrote. That would set the stage “for a more managerially competent ruler” to “bring order to the chaos he’s created,” he added.
I take these warnings seriously. There are perhaps 25% of Americans who would be just fine with a dictatorship as long as they get to pick the dictator. Those 25% will already vote for DJT no matter what. To beat him, the Democrats need to get 2/3 of the sane 75% of the population. That’s by no means given. Once again in power, there would be a purge like never before seen and everyone in every government agency and in the military chain of command would be replaced by True Believers. Then we’ll get a premanent “temporary” martial law and no more elections.
My thought is, the only people still using that phrase are right wing agitators. It was used by a few people during the early days of the protests against police brutality, where people literally felt as though they and their neighborhoods would be safer without having an armed force of tyrants terrorizing them.
Plenty of other phrases are used, plenty of other ideas have been proposed, but this is the one that the right just won’t let go of, and demand that it is defended at every chance they get.
The reason that the right keeps repeating this phrase over and over is not because it is relevant to anything that anyone of substance on the left says or believes, it is because by repeating it over and over again, they are able to scare the pants off the suburban soccer moms.
What’s the most ridiculous part is whenever anyone on the left buys into this right wing propaganda.
Right, as you say, some.
A small portion is in fact, some.
I’m not sure why you are arguing with the very definition that you yourself gave.
But once again, if you want to criticize someone, either go out on the streets and criticize the people that used it briefly in the face of overwhelming bullying and intimidation by the police, or talk to the right wing propagandists who keep repeating it because they know that it’ll scare the soccer moms.
So, when you say that the criticism rightly belongs with the people who decided to use that word, who, exactly, are you wanting to criticize?
You missed the point of the second phrase. Taking away from A does not necessarily mean giving to B.
And I was referring to a couple of posts where the criticism was laid at the people who were “taken in*” by the defund part. To my knowledge, the phrase was coined by advocates. I’m saying that they deserve the blame, at least in part, for the misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of what the idea is all about.
I say this as a supporter of defund the police. We had a kid locally whose parents called the police because the kid was suicidal. The police shot him. He had locked himself in a room with a gun. That would have been better handled by mental health professionals.
But dumb marketing is dumb marketing, even if the product is good.
*my phrase, not the posters