Trump Telecom Advisor Doesn't Think Broadband Monopolies Are Real, Wants To Dismantle The FCC

Media Critic Calls On Journalists To Be Obedient Stenographers

Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts

from the you're-not-helping dept

Mon, Nov 28th 2016 8:26am — Mike Masnick

I didn't quite think it was possible, but it seems that the fight over some potential election recounts has served to basically make everyone look petty and awful. American politics continues to be a dumpster fire. Here is the latest, in three acts.

Act One: Jill Stein to the rescue?

Last week, there was a bit of a fuss, starting with a mostly detail-free article from NY Mag suggesting that some well-respected voting researchers had found some abnormalities, and were suggesting that the Clinton campaign seek a full recount in three key states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan). After that started to get some buzz, the key e-voting researcher named in the article, Alex Halderman clarified that he didn't actually think there was any foul play, but that, since we all recognize there are security problems with e-voting machines, this could serve as a useful check. As we noted at the time, there was really no way for the Clinton campaign to take this on without much more realistic evidence of fraud, or else it would look incredibly petty and ridiculous -- especially given the concerns the Clinton campaign raised about Donald Trump potentially contesting the election results.

But, into the breach stepped Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who set up a crowdfunding page to see if people would donate to pay for the recounts in those three states (if a candidate requests a recount, they have to fund it). Stein claimed that she wasn't doing this to help Clinton, but as part of the Green Party's support for "election integrity." And, sure, yeah, we're all for election integrity, but Stein's crowdfunding campaign is a bit of a scam. She's preying on false hopes of Clinton supporters to raise a ton of money -- likely approximating twice as much as she raised during her actual campaign. And, for what? No one's entirely sure. Yes, some of the money will go towards demanding recounts, but those recounts might not happen. Instead, the Stein campaign can put in an official request for one, but that's no guarantee. And the Stein campaign just says that if it ends up with more money than it needs, it will "also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform." But, without details, it's not at all clear what people are really donating to -- other than building a massive list for the Green Party of potential people to hit up for money in the future.

On Friday, Stein filed the first of these recount requests in Wisconsin, in which her campaign alleges "evidence of voting irregularities" even though there really isn't any. It's basically a made-up request that tosses in a dose or two of conspiracy theory about "foreign interference" in the election. Again, while I'm all for election integrity and am concerned about e-voting machines, alleging fraud without any real evidence is just conspiracy theory mongering.

Act Two: Hillary Clinton: well, okay, if we must...

After the money started flowing to Stein, the Clinton campaign, in the form of a Medium post from the campaign's top lawyer, Marc Elias, said that the campaign would somewhat reluctantly get involved in any recount effort. This is after admitting that the campaign found no evidence on its own of fraud and hadn't intended to ask for such a recount at all, despite a multi-pronged approach to review voting information to see if anything looked fishy. But, now, Elias claims that since Stein got the ball rolling, the Clinton campaign will get involved "just to be represented" in any effort:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

Which, okay, fair enough, but it still looks a bit silly overall, and a waste of money since they don't seem to think any recount effort will have any impact anyway.

Act Three: Donald Trump: meeeeeeeeee! this must be about meeeeeeeeee!

At this point, any reasonable President-elect in the same scenario would sit back, chuckle at the absurdity of the efforts discussed above and maybe focus on finishing up his planned cabinet appointments. But not Donald Trump. First, he mocked the Clinton campaign for joining in this effort. To some extent, you can understand this bit of gloating, after the lengths Clinton and her supporters went to in mocking Trump's own claims that he might contest the results of the election:

Of course, this still looks kind of petty, especially given that Trump himself had made it quite clear that he would have actively contested the results had he lost. It's a bit silly to then mock the Democrats for doing what he would have done, even if they played this silly game of pretending to get involved reluctantly.

But, in true Trump fashion, he just can't leave things like this alone. The potential recount seemed to be getting too much attention, so he decided to roll out his bullshit "voter fraud against me" claims anyway, first arguing that he would have won the popular vote, if it weren't for 3 million illegal votes for Clinton.

This seems partly in response to the fact that reporters are covering the fact that Clinton's lead in the popular vote keeps growing, and surpassed 2 million votes. Of course, who won the popular vote is effectively meaningless, but it seems to make Trump antsy. The whole "millions of people who voted illegally" thing is conspiracy theory bullshit, pushed by a former Texas official based on absolutely nothing -- but picked up by the crackpots at Infowars.

Let's be clear here: the claim is absolutely hogwash, yet is being repeated by our President-elect, who already won but seems insecure with the fact that he lost the popular vote. I thought that in this effort, both Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton would come out of this process looking like sketchy sore losers. What I didn't expect (though probably should have) is that Trump would come out of it looking even worse. Not only is he a sore winner, but he's reinforced the fact that he's willing to buy into complete crackpot conspiracy theories if they support his ego. That's insane, and incredibly dangerous.

He followed that up with yet another tweet, claiming that the media is ignoring "serious voter fraud" in Virginia, New Hampshire and California:

This is also ridiculous. If there were any actual evidence of voter fraud, the press would be all over it -- even those that people want to insist supported Clinton. Even if the mainstream media were hopelessly in the tank for Clinton, getting a big story like evidence of widespread "serious voter fraud" would overwhelm that. But the fact is that there's no such evidence. Our President-elect is either making stuff up entirely, or repeating crackpot theories. Also, by falsely claiming that there's widespread voter fraud, Trump seems to be undermining his own message that there shouldn't be recounts going on. If he's really so concerned about widespread voter fraud (again, which didn't actually happen), why isn't he embracing the calls for recounts too?

If you want some actual facts: there's been almost no evidence of voter fraud, other than a few small attempts here or there. ProPublica has the best analysis of this, noting the many ways in which it has reviewed the data, looking for evidence of voter fraud and finding none at all. Here's a sampling of what ProPublica had to say:

We had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was “rigged” no matter what Stein or Trump say. /1
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

Electionland had huge amounts of data. 600 ppl monitored social media. We had @LawyersComm call logs. We had 120,000 people texting us. /2
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

We saw plenty of problems: Long lines, broken voting machines, incorrect poll books, confusion abt voter ID laws /5 https://t.co/IWzZgtscmV
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

But we saw no reason to doubt the results. There 👏🏼 was 👏🏼 no 👏🏼 widespread 👏🏼 voter 👏🏼 fraud. /6 https://t.co/ulzmUb9onU
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

All claims that election machines were rigged were because of poorly calibrated machines or user error. /8 https://t.co/rY6MZQwmsJ
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

A handful of people across the country were arrested for voter fraud, representing a microscopic fraction of voters. /9
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

We saw no evidence that undocumented immigrants voted illegally. /11 https://t.co/x7FeE6IHRL
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

Millions of illegal votes would require a conspiracy larger than all previous conspiracy theories combined. /12
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

Thousands of election officials would need to have taken part. And they all would have had to fail to understand the electoral college. /13
— ProPublica (@ProPublica) November 27, 2016

So, yeah. Everyone comes out of this looking absolutely terrible. Voting machines are terrible and prone to serious security problems, and should be done away with -- especially in their current form. But even with the security concerns, the idea that there was serious voter fraud due to those machines, or from other factors, is complete hogwash, and everyone should just stop it.

Jill Stein Wisconsin Recount Petition (PDF)Jill Stein Wisconsin Recount Petition (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: conspiracy theories, donald trump, e-voting, election, hillary clinton, jill stein, recount

177 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

"Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts"

If you think the recounts make Clinton and Trump look terrible, you should have watched their campaigns.

—Michael

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:37am

Not totally serious, but...
"We had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was “rigged” no matter what Stein or Trump say. /1"

Well... that just means they were in on it! Or, it just proves the levels of conspiracy by hiding it in plain sight!

"Thousands of election officials would need to have taken part."

Unless those electronic machines are easily hacked, of course, in which case a lot less people would be required.

"And they all would have had to fail to understand the electoral college."

Unless the idea is to undermine confidence in the electoral system by causing both the popular and EV results to be questionable in the minds of populace. Especially handy if you're, say, a foreign power unhappy with the country's attempts to "spread democracy" over the last few decades. At the very least, it seems to be deflecting attention quite nicely away from Trump's TU settlement, his questionable cabinet picks and his tantrums over the exercise of free speech by actors and other citizens.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with any of my above statements, but the problem with this kind of controversy is there will always be a perceived problem. If nothing else, it seems strange that Trump is stirring the pot to get supporters to believe that the result should not be believed in a contest he won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Not totally serious, but...
  " If nothing else, it seems strange that Trump is stirring the pot to get supporters to believe that the result should not be believed in a contest he won."
  
  I find it strange as well. I'm thinking he's implying that if they are going to do a recount, that they should somehow qualify the citizenship of the voters during the count?
  
  I say this because in 2012 Elections Florida said that they had roughly 180K people that voted that "may" not be citizens of the U.S. As well as various "experts" suggesting illegals could impact the 2016 elections.
  
  Of course your never going to get the Democrats to admit illegal voters are a problem, even if they are. At the same time, your never going to get the Republicans to admit they are not a problem, even if they are not.
  
  The only way to be relatively sure, is to require a birth certificate and photo ID when voting. It won't catch them all, but it should remove it as a hot topic and major issue. Good luck with that ever happening lol.
  
  http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE84A1AF20120511?irpc=932
  
  http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/0 5/09/exclusive-florida-investigating-potential-non-citizen-voters/
  
  http://watchdog.org/260524/illegal -immigrants-2016-election/
  
  http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
    VOTER ID?! THAT'S RACIST!!!
    
    Seriously though, the rabid refusal to require voter ID is one of the reasons that I wonder about there being validity to the right's claims about illegal voters.
    
    The vast majority of folks can manage to get their hands on a state ID. If we make those IDs free, there's no way it can be disadvantageous to the poor.
    
    Heck, California (the bluest state of 'em all) doesn't even require people to have a social security number to vote, much less an ID.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
      "If we make those IDs free, there's no way it can be disadvantageous to the poor."
      
      Sure, so long as you also make it absolutely equally free to travel to where the free IDs are, make sure that everyone is equally able to take the time necessary to get one, and make certain that getting one isn't tied to anything that requires money to acquire (such as a vehicle, an address, a utility bill, etc.). Good luck actually getting THAT done....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        So we give up our right to a fair and honest election because some people can't afford to get the proper ID? You need a photo ID in this day and age. Yes it's a pain in the ass, yes it may set you back, even if your poor, but you need an ID. I can't buy a gun without an ID, but by god I should be able to vote? I would argue voting is MORE dangerous! Case in point, look who the fuck we just elected! I'm starting to think we need fucking mental exam before they hand us a ballot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Friend, the number of Americans without a state ID or drivers license is AT LEAST 1% (surveys of registered voters) and possibly as high as 10% (surveys of Americans generally, registered to vote or not). Even at the low end, you're talking about MILLIONS of people.
        
        If you want to suddenly make it illegal for millions of people to vote, you had better have a good fucking reason to do so, such as an equal number of millions committing voter fraud. Nothing like that even remotely exists....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "If you want to suddenly make it illegal for millions of people to vote, you had better have a good fucking reason to do so, such as an equal number of millions committing voter fraud. Nothing like that even remotely exists...."
        
        I understand and appreciate your point, I do. I just don't think allowing people to vote without ID is the answer. If we need to subsidize, or otherwise come up with ways to get ID into the hands of those who can't afford it, then so be it. But simply doing without ID altogether will allow there to always be the specter of impropriety over elections, on both sides.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
        
        It's not difficult to get a state ID or driver's license. (If anything, it's *far too easy* to get a driver's license, as it theoretically requires demonstrating you're capable of driving, but I think everyone here would agree that experience shows we hand those out *far* too easily. But that's a debate for a different time.) It's not some arduous task that a reasonable person would conclude acts as a credible barrier to enfranchisement.
        
        If you do not comply with basic, simple prerequisites, you're unable to perform actions that depend on those prerequisites. Why should voting be a special case? If it's really that important--and I agree that it is--isn't it really that important to put into place simple, common-sense measures that any legitimate citizen who cares enough can easily comply with, in order to ensure its integrity?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
        
        Papers please!
        
        Great to see folks out there defending authoritarian bullshit like this. Come on, guys, you're better than this. There's a reason we don't require people to have a federal ID and if you don't understand that, you should do more research.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        what is this I don't even
        
        I'm sorry, Mike, but that response is completely incoherent and, as far as I can tell, has nothing at all to do with the thing that I wrote that you're responding to.
        
        Also, you totally Godwin'd yourself.
        
        Come on, you're better than this!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "authoritarian bullshit"
        
        Wait, what? An ID is like the LEAST authoritarian shit our government does. Look at HIPAA, or FCC regulations, or business licenses for little girls' lemonade stands, or your income tax filing, or vehicle emissions testing, or game limits, or DMCA agent registration, or DMCA anti-circumvention bullshit, or "border" searches within 100 miles of it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        I honestly don't understand. I don't understand why SOME form of ID being required is "authoritarian bullshit".
        
        I don't want people to be able to buy a gun, drive a car, buy booze, buy weed, get prescriptions, sign checks, open accounts, get teaching jobs, join the military, or VOTE etc etc without SOME kind of ID. Yes there is a risk of the Gov getting out of control with the data it can collect. As a responsible citizen, I'll have to try and keep that in check. I accept that responsibility.
        
        Also; I don't need a "Federal" or even "State" ID to vote. But I damn sure need SOME type of ID proving I'm who I say I am. Why is that so bad? If you look at the Florida requirements, I can vote with any number of Non-Government issued ID's. Hell, I can use my credit card as ID because it has my picture on it. I could even use my school ID!
        
        I honestly don't get why having to show ID to vote is authoritarian bullshit. Maybe I'm just dense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Typical leftist horse shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 1:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Thanks for your insightful comment that in no way reflects badly on the maturity and intelligence of you and those you claim to help represent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2016 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Truth hurts doesn't it? LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Let me know when one of you guys are prepared to present an adult truthful argument, and we'll see. You certainly haven't provided any such thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Typical leftist horse shit.
        
        It's leftist horse shit to oppose mandatory IDs for citizens? Fascinating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2016 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Requiring ID to vote like the rest of the western world. You make it sound like requiring travel papers. Intentionally. Because you're intellectually dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Dec 2016 @ 1:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "Requiring ID to vote like the rest of the western world."
        
        Really?
        
        https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/06/how-do-i-vote-general-election-pollin g-what-need-to-know
        
        "Do I need to take ID to the polling station?
        You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You will need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper."
        
        They do note that there's plans to change this (probably because some in power swallow the same bullshit you're spreading), but at the moment you're lying your ass off.
        
        "Because you're intellectually dishonest."
        
        It's amazing how the biggest bullshit artists on this site always pretend they're the only honest people in the room...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        I can't speak for millions of people but I can speak for me. I have a valid drivers license but after just losing my home of the past 6 years I'm in limbo. My drivers license has the address of the home I just lost, I don't yet have a new home, and my new mailing address is a PO Box.
        
        What is your solution for this Einstein? You think everything is a black and white, easy to solve situation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Two things...
        
        Give the address of where you are staying.
        You ID is still valid, but depending on where you are you still have to registry first, but you can still get it done.
        
        Don't get stupid and just assume that all is now lost.
        Additionally, if you are homeless, you have bigger fish to fry than getting a vote.
        
        Voting is over rated, you would do better to serve as a fully informed juror if you really want to make a difference for your country!
        
        So seek help, get back on your feet, and be a good juror for your fellow citizens, you have more power there than some dumbass you voted to sit in an oval office.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Let me see:
        "address: Car parked mostly on bouleward street around number 64."
        
        Voting is overrated untill there is a systematic representation bias in who votes. Then non-voting groups get ignored by default... Be aware that you don't address him in the situation he is in, but defines ways whereby he can work around it or feel better about ignoring the issues.
        
        Ideally address should not be required to specifically identify a person as opposed to photo and/or biometrics. But I digress.
        Make no mistake: I am all for voter ID as opposed to Masnicks argument here (The alt-right conspiracy argumentation? Really?), but it has to be implemented slowly (over at least 4 years), it has to be free of charge, nearby the citizen and have reasonable opening hours as well as some security against government abuse...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 3:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "It's not difficult to get a state ID or driver's license"
        
        ...or is it?
        
        First off, not everybody drives. Especially in large cities with decent public transportation, lots of people simply don't learn to drive or don't keep a valid licence. State IDs vary, but they can also involve non-trivial effort (as an example I think I've heard before, a state where a person is resident needs them to get a form of ID they don't possess from the state where they were born, and that takes further hoops to jump through). If I'm not mistaken, most voter ID laws demand specific forms of ID so, (for example, a student from out of state can't use their in-state student ID, they have to get something else specifically to vote), so it's not simply a case of having an ID you'd normally use day to day
        
        Then, of course, there's the efforts put in by certain districts to make getting these IDs more difficult. For example, making it necessary to go to a DMV office to get an ID but changing opening hours and locations to make it difficult for any non-driver with a full time job to get there without taking time off work. There's numerous accusations that such things have been done by Republican state government to disproportionately affect poorer/minority districts (who are often more likely to vote Democrat). I won't get into the conspiracy aspect of this, but getting ID is clearly a non-trivial thing to do in some places and it seems a great way of disenfranchising potential voters without specifically stating that as the purpose.
        
        But, it all boils down to this - is the problem of voter fraud a bigger or smaller problem than the problem of disenfranchising voters or imposing a defacto poll tax? Most independent research seems to pretend that it is not a problem that demands this solution. So, why is voter ID specifically demanded despite its problems?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 4:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Yes you have to jump thru hoops, that's part of what makes the ID valid. If you just walk up and stick a quarter in the machine and it spits out an ID, then it wouldn't mean much.
        
        I don't hear anyone bitching about needing ID to buy a gun, or beer, or opening a bank account, why voting? I would argue the right to vote is more dangerous than all of those other things. I don't hear anyone complaining about all the damn hoops I have to jump thru to get a concealed weapons permit, or back ground checks to get a security clearance, or joining the military, or getting a job. Are all those people picking on the poor too?
        
        Do what you have to do to get an ID. No it's not easy, yes it can be a pain in the ass, but it can be done. Some local church and small business have ID's for the homeless drives here in the pan handle on occasion for those that can't afford the $25. It can be done. Hell, even if it can't, why aren't people lobbying to make state ID's free?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 1:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "Yes you have to jump thru hoops, that's part of what makes the ID valid"
        
        It's also what disenfranchises voters unnecessarily. Are those hoops a) necessary and b) helpful in combating the actual levels of voter fraud happening? If the answer to either question is "no", then criticism is valid. Remember, half the argument is that the number and expense of those hoops is tending to increase when these rules are enforced, not that the hoops exist in the first place.
        
        "I don't hear anyone bitching about needing ID to buy a gun, or beer, or opening a bank account, why voting?"
        
        Beer and bank account aren't constitutionally protected activities. Furthermore, none of those activities are time-restricted, whereas voting in an election is.
        
        I won't get into a 2nd amendment argument here, but comparing voting to buying a beer is rather dumb.
        
        "Are all those people picking on the poor too? "
        
        No. That's a really stupid question if you understand the actual argument, so thanks for clarifying you don't know what other people are actually complaining about.
        
        "Some local church and small business have ID's for the homeless drives here in the pan handle on occasion for those that can't afford the $25"
        
        Are the resulting IDs valid for voting? One of the major complaints is that states that are trying to pass these laws are also selecting rules that reject most IDs that are valid for other purposes. I would, however, note that the argument that IDs are OK because homeless people get help isn't really good argument against the idea that the poor are disproportionately targeted.
        
        "Hell, even if it can't, why aren't people lobbying to make state ID's free?"
        
        I believe they will, but many of the people demanding that IDs be used for voting also seem to be the people opposing taxes being used to pay for them. Given that, you might as well fight against the concept of mandatory IDs in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2016 @ 5:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "I won't get into a 2nd amendment argument here"
        
        Damn right you wont, because you don't have an argument.
        
        Ok, you think comparing voting to buying beer or opening a bank account are just "dumb" (You're such an arrogant ass) Why should I need an ID to buy a gun, and not to vote?
        
        All your answers did, was dance around the issue and scatter the blame. It's to expensive, it's not convenient, it's not necessary, it takes too long.. etc... All excuses, all weak.
        
        The 26th amendment prohibits the denial of someone over 18 to vote. Aside from the people that are obvious, how the hell is one supposed to know if they are 18 or older if you can't identify them?
        
        "Given that, you might as well fight against the concept of mandatory IDs in the first place."
        
        How about fighting against discrimination? I have to have an ID to prove age and eligibility to buy a gun, but not to vote? Sounds to me like we are discriminating against people that exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        "Damn right you wont, because you don't have an argument."
        
        On the 2nd amendment? No, I don't. But, that's not relevant to the actual discussion here.
        
        "Ok, you think comparing voting to buying beer or opening a bank account are just "dumb""
        
        Yes. If you don't see why, you're even more stupid than I thought. I already mentioned several reasons why above. Unless you honestly believe that your right to buy an alcoholic beverage is equal to your right to vote, in which case I'd note that numerous conservative states are already heavily infringing on that "right" with or without ID.
        
        "All your answers did, was dance around the issue and scatter the blame. It's to expensive, it's not convenient, it's not necessary, it takes too long.. etc... All excuses, all weak. "
        
        I detailed the multiple, varied, sometimes complex reasons why there are issues with these kinds of rules, especially in light of the fact that no widespread voter fraud has been demonstrated. Unless you wish to demonstrate why these are false (which you haven't, other than to wave them away or whine "whut about mah gunz"), these are the issues that prevent voter ID requirements from being acceptable, if they are indeed even needed.
        
        This is what's called *reality*, and it forms the basis of any real debate. If you're the same AC who just threw a toddler tantrum in another thread because they couldn't grasp basic facts, though, I understand you're not familiar with the real world.
        
        "Sounds to me like we are discriminating against people that exercise their 2nd amendment rights."
        
        Why are right wingers so fetishistic about that amendment at the expense of all others? I'll just note that you've been arguing for restrictions to be added to voting and not that restrictions be removed from the exercising of other rights. That seems weird if you think that IDs for weapons is so wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 4:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Yes you have to jump thru hoops, that's part of what makes the ID valid. If you just walk up and stick a quarter in the machine and it spits out an ID, then it wouldn't mean much.
        
        I don't hear anyone bitching about needing ID to buy a gun, or beer, or opening a bank account, why voting? I would argue the right to vote is more dangerous than all of those other things. I don't hear anyone complaining about all the damn hoops I have to jump thru to get a concealed weapons permit, or back ground checks to get a security clearance, or joining the military, or getting a job. Are all those people picking on the poor too?
        
        Do what you have to do to get an ID. No it's not easy, yes it can be a pain in the ass, but it can be done. Some local church and small business have ID's for the homeless drives here in the pan handle on occasion for those that can't afford the $25. It can be done. Hell, even if it can't, why aren't people lobbying to make state ID's free?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 4:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
        Yes you have to jump thru hoops, that's part of what makes the ID valid. If you just walk up and stick a quarter in the machine and it spits out an ID, then it wouldn't mean much.
        
        I don't hear anyone complaining about needing ID to buy a firearm, or alcohol, or opening a bank account, why voting? I would argue the right to vote is more dangerous than all of those other things. I don't hear anyone complaining about all the hoops I have to jump thru to get a concealed weapons permit, or back ground checks to get a security clearance, or joining the military, or getting a job. Are all those people picking on the poor too?
        
        Do what you have to do to get an ID. No it's not easy, yes it can be a pain,, but it can be done. Some local church and small business have ID's for the homeless drives here in the pan handle on occasion for those that can't afford the $25. It can be done. Even if it can't, why aren't people lobbying to make state ID's free instead of being able to vote without one?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:27pm
        
        Cry me a river.
        This is more of a "lower the bar" problem. People just aren't that motivated. They can't be bothered. So give them special treatment. Yes, I said SPECIAL treatment. The rest of us that need to DRIVE to our JOBS put up with this crap.
        
        If you care, you will bother. The affected just don't give a d*mn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Steve R. (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...
      The Democrats can solve the problem of voter ID themselves. All they have to do is set-up a registry where those who lack the required documentation can have a Democratic operative pick them up and help them through the process.
      
      If the Democrats are not willing to assist those who have problems, then the Democrats have no right to complain.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:47am
  
  Re: Not totally serious, but...
  This kind of fear, uncertainty and doubt from an elected official about the election system is common in countries where democracy is less free.
  
  Usually it is used as a pretence to weaken the democracy construct and personal rights on account of state, to prepare for a coup d'etat from the faction in charge or in the very least as a pretense for declaring martial law and do away with opposition.
  
  Hearing such paranoia from a person representing a supposed free "democracy" is very surreal an extremely scary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:38am

"Let's be clear here: the claim is absolutely hogwash, yet is being repeated by our President-elect,"

Trump seems to have learned that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth. I wonder where he picked up that habit from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  That's what I've always thought. Trump played by Alinsky's Rules for Radicals better than Clinton.
  
  From "The Sting":
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqu-xQNFYP0
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:30pm
  
  zzzzz
  Why single out Trump? Pretty much everyone is in this particular dogpile. The only one that's not included is the Libertarian candidate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:38pm
    
    Re: zzzzz
    You took a post that listed three acts including the Stein, Clinton and Trump campaigns and then claimed we singled out Trump. You, mind friend, win dumbest comment on a thread in which you had hefty competition. That's actually quite impressive...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Wanderer (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: zzzzz
      To be fair, the person you're replying to was replying not to the original article, but to a comment which did only mention Trump and not either of the other two.
      
      (Also to be fair, the "repeat a lie often enough" thing does seem to fit Trump better than it does either of the other two. That's a separate discussion, however.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:46am

The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
The Democrats have gone to great extremes to remove virtually all impediments to voting. Furthermore, the Democrats have advocated that voter fraud is inconsequential and would not have an adverse effect on voting. The Democrats have lost the election (in terms of the electoral college) and they are now outraged and want to "know the truth". Well, if they where really concerned about the "truth" the Democrats would not be so adamantly opposed to the creation of paper trails that would document the eligibility of the voters.

In North Carolina the Democrats are attempting to frustrate a Republican attempt at a recount concerning the Governor's election. If Democrats were really concerned about the truth, they would support the recount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:53am
  
  Just so you know…
  …voter fraud, electoral fraud, voter suppression and
  gerrymandering are four different things, three of which
  are old GOP tactics, tried and true, for over fifty years. ‌ ‌ ;]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Just so you know…
    So Republicans are crooks? Yeah, calling Republican names worked out real well for us this time eh? Maybe we should think of a new tactic?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 12:06am
      
      That's where YOU went, son, all on your own…
      …when I merely stated an inconvenient fact. ‌ ‌ ;]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:05am
  
  Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
  We wont talk about all the issues North Carolina's government has, (like most states), however your assumption that these are all Democrat maneuvering, the GOP does the same things, infact as another poster stated, some of them were put in place BY the GOP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:06am
  
  Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
  Wrong on North Carolina. The Republican governor has gotten votes recounted at various places, and ended up another thousand or two votes farther behind.
  
  He's also alleged all sorts of kinds of fraud, and had 3 person committees of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat vote down his claims.
  
  Also, if Democrats were really rigging the governor's race in North Carolina, don't you think they'd have rigged the presidential vote & senate vote to be for their candidate? The GOP governor lost because he pushed HB2 and lost the state over a hundred million dollars and counting from the boycotts it caused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve R. (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
    From: http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/state/voter-id-opponents-join-fray-over-nc-governor-ballots /article_528a8091-f950-57eb-9caa-62fa3d687769.html
    
    "Lawyers from Southern Coalition for Social Justice asked a federal judge late Wednesday to reject a lawsuit questioning the verification of voters who used same-day registration to cast ballots. The filing was done by some of the same lawyers and advocates who successfully sued to overturn parts of a wide-ranging elections law enacted by Republicans in the General Assembly.
    
    They're opposing a lawsuit filed this week by the conservative Civitas Institute. Civitas says the state cannot finish counting votes until it verifies addresses of voters who used same-day registration. A hearing is scheduled next week."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ShadowNinja (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
      And your point?
      
      North Carolina's voter ID law was struck down as racially motivated. A federal appeals court that concluded that the state’s voting strictures “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
      
      Also your own article doesn't make it clear if those votes in dispute are already counted or not already in the vote totals. If they aren't being counted, then who's suing shows that the GOP doesn't expect those votes to help them. Also, given the complete lack of any evidence of voter fraud, the GOP's lawsuit is pretty much a baseless attempt to disenfranchise voters who they think won't vote the right way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
  The Democrats have gone to great extremes to remove virtually all impediments to voting.
  
  Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
  
  Furthermore, the Democrats have advocated that voter fraud is inconsequential and would not have an adverse effect on voting.
  
  It's not "the Democrats advocating" this, it's the truth. Voter fraud is inconsequential, and current voting systems, which don't require ID, have worked perfectly fine in stopping most voter fraud. It's just not a serious problem at all.
  
  Well, if they where really concerned about the "truth" the Democrats would not be so adamantly opposed to the creation of paper trails that would document the eligibility of the voters.
  
  Except, that's also hogwash. I'm all for a paper trail on actual votes. But the "documents" to prove eligibility of voters is nothing but a voter suppression technique, designed to stop certain groups from voting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
    "Except, that's also hogwash. I'm all for a paper trail on actual votes. But the "documents" to prove eligibility of voters is nothing but a voter suppression technique, designed to stop certain groups from voting."
    
    I don't understand this. To vote, you must be a U.S. citizen. That is the law. What method, aside from some type of identification, should be used to prove that you are indeed a U.S. citizen?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
      
      What method, aside from some type of identification, should be used to prove that you are indeed a U.S. citizen?
      
      There is no single form of identification that provides what you want and is guaranteed to be uniquely available to citizens.
      
      For example, in another comment with an avatar like yours, you cited a birth certificate. Not every citizen has a birth certificate, including:
      
      Naturalized citizen (e.g., legal immigrants who became citizens but, by definition, were not born here)
      
      People who were never given a birth certificate in the first place, despite being born here (hospital screwups, at-home births, etc.)
      
      People who were given a birth certificate but no longer have it (e.g., theft, fire)
      
      Also, since AFAIK there are few standards surrounding the format of a birth certificate, your average polling place worker is not going to be able to authenticate one anyway.
      
      What the debates then revolve around is what forms of identification are:
      
      Easy for poll workers to authenticate (as, otherwise, why bother?)
      
      Offer few false positives (a.k.a., "voter fraud", people with the identification who are not citizens)
      
      Offer few false negatives (i.e., people who are citizens but do not have access to that form of identification)
      
      Certainly, one can debate what forms of identification can meet those criteria.
      
      Where the "voter suppression" discussion comes into play is when policies veer towards avoiding false positives and causes too many false negatives. False negatives disproportionately affect those without the means of running around and trying to get the proper identification: the poor, the elderly, invalids, etc. False negatives can be exacerbated through funding decisions (e.g., "you can register and get a voter card with your existing documentation, but only on every third Tuesday from 2-3pm, in a location that is two hours away").
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 5:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        "Certainly, one can debate what forms of identification can meet those criteria."
        
        No need to debate, the criteria is already set by the state, and covers a broad range of ID' including non-state ID's.
        
        -Florida driver's license
        
        -Florida ID card issued by the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
        
        -U.S. passport
        
        -Debit or credit card
        
        -Military identification
        
        -Student identification
        
        -Retirement center identification
        
        -Neighborhood association ID
        
        -Public assistance identification
        -Veteran health identification card issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
        -A license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm
        -Employee identification card issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the Federal Government, the state, a county, or a municipality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        This is FL state law. This is not GA law or MI law or NM law, etc.
        
        Each state has their own requirements.
        
        There have been many reasons and court decisions on why requiring ID to vote is a problem, when implemented incorrectly or quickly. Quick examples:
        
        1. You are not issued ID with a picture from any state or federal agency which means you have to obtain this on your own.
        
        2. If you are implementing new rules (for example) within a year or less time frame this does cause problems from voters to those who are running the voters registration offices to those who are organizing the voting hall.
        
        If you want to require picture ID for voting, fine. Make it free, make it accessible, make it a long transition period, and make the rules simple and easy to follow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        "If you want to require picture ID for voting, fine. Make it free, make it accessible, make it a long transition period, and make the rules simple and easy to follow."
        
        So we should make ID free for buying Alcohol? Guns? Flying? Opening a bank account? What about everything else you need ID for? I don't hear anyone raising hell that you should not have to show ID to buy a gun if your poor! Shouldn't the poor be allowed to buy a gun too?
        
        "1. You are not issued ID with a picture from any state or federal agency which means you have to obtain this on your own."
        
        In all cases this is true. Inconvenient, but so what?
        
        "2. If you are implementing new rules (for example) within a year or less time frame this does cause problems from voters to those who are running the voters registration offices to those who are organizing the voting hall."
        
        Now this I agree with. We do need to make the change slow enough that everyone can keep up. I concede this point.
        
        "If you want to require picture ID for voting, fine. Make it free, make it accessible, make it a long transition period, and make the rules simple and easy to follow."
        
        The problem with this is your talking about a national ID card. No way your going to get the Left OR the Right to agree to that as like Mike said, It's very authoritarian.
        
        The lawmakers make a list of acceptable ID, and it's up to you to go get it. Just like everything else you need ID for regardless of how rich or poor you are. If a state, church, municipality, whatever wants to subsidize it, then so be it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
      Don't worry, Mike's just practising on the uneven bars in his head.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JEDIDIAH, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:32pm
        
        Regarding that whole "poor" thing.
        My trailer trash parents were able to keep all of my relevant documents in order. What's everyone else's excuse?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 3:35am
        
        Re: Regarding that whole "poor" thing.
        Who cares? Your parents inability to keep documents in order should not prevent you from exercising your rights as a citizen. Anything from fire to a change in the law since your birth might prevent you from having the "correct" document to hand at any given moment.
        
        The AC above you details the many other issues if you wish to take any notice rather than pretending a person you disagree with is not right in the head for some reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Regarding that whole "poor" thing.
        "Your parents inability to keep documents in order should not prevent you from exercising your rights as a citizen."
        
        So because I have the right to bear arms, an ID should be provided so that I can do so? Otherwise I shouldn't have to show ID when I buy a gun?
        
        I like it. Sign me up! /s
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 2:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Regarding that whole "poor" thing.
        Well, Jebediah seems to think that's fine in the comment I was referring to. He certainly seems to think that your parents' ability to retain particular documents should control your ability to exercise your own rights, at least.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldMugwump (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
    I disagree.
    
    Democracy is an insufficient protection against tyranny. 51% of the electorate enslaving the other 49% is not, to my mind, an acceptable outcome.
    
    Democracy's role is to allow the peaceful replacement of bad governments. Large majorities can always replace governments, via civil war. Democracy lets us bypass the bloodshed.
    
    From that viewpoint, easier voting isn't always good. We want elections to generate the same result a civil war would - otherwise, civil war remains an attractive option.
    
    So there should be some barriers to voting, just as there are to civil war. Those who have strong feelings about an election should participate, and those who are indifferent should stay home.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
    " Voter fraud is inconsequential"
    
    This is entirely untrue. When elections come down to a handful of votes in a couple states, any voter fraud has the potential to swing an election. Why do you think Al Gore only wanted a few precincts in Florida re-counted rather than the entire state? Just a handful of votes and he would have been President.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Alphonse Tomato, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
      "'Voter fraud is inconsequential'
      This is entirely untrue. When elections come down to a handful of votes in a couple states, any voter fraud has the potential to swing an election. "
      
      Indeed. And each fraudulent vote has to be considered just as serious as each legitimate voter (that is, citizen of legal age) who is prevented from voting whether by closed polling places or bureaucratic paperwork requirements. The two issues are mathematically identical.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steve R. (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
    Trick question, I obviously do not disagree with the concept of "making it easier to vote". But there is a slippery slope concerning the meaning of "easier to vote". How much "easy" should we have? There are rationale limits.
    
    OK, in terms of voter fraud being a truth independent of the Democratic party, you have a point. But the reason for me stating it that way - is that this is a Democratic mime which they are now making a 180 on by demanding a recount to "verify the election". Obviously, if fraud is not a serious problem as advocated by the Democrats, the recount is unnecessary.
    
    On your last point concerning so-called voter suppression, I will have to respectfully disagree. Voter suppression is simply a deplorable manufactured mime by the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats could easily overcome this so-called voter suppression by directly helping those who are being "suppressed".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
      I assume that by "mime" you mean "meme"?
      
      (I'm almost hoping you're not, because it amuses me to think of French clowns meddling in our elections while trapped in glass boxes.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        +1 Internets to you for the visual.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
    
    Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
    
    I disagree. Unless you were to replace the word "people" with "legitimate citizens," in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
    
    Voter fraud is inconsequential
    
    This is an example of what they call "lying with statistics." The camp pushing that narrative loves to point out how few people get prosecuted for voter fraud each election. And they're right; it is a really small number of people. However, in doing so they conveniently ignore all the reports of cases like the districts with more votes cast than registered voters that make it clear that there is massive fraud going on.
    
    Put in that context, the statistics about such a tiny number of people being prosecuted take on a horrifying new implication: there is massive fraud going on and in the vast majority of cases, we have no clue at all who it is!
    
    But the "documents" to prove eligibility of voters is ... designed to stop certain groups from voting.
    
    Yes, exactly. No one disputes this. The question is, who is it designed to stop from voting? The people actually trying to put these laws in place say it's to stop people who don't have the right to vote from voting, whereas critics like to push the racism-ist narrative that it's to stop underprivileged minorities who do have a legitimate right to vote from voting.
    
    I'm more inclined to side with the first group, for three reasons. First, as noted above, there is widespread fraud going on and we have no idea who's doing it. Why not take simple, common-sense measures to weed some of it out?
    
    Second, because the racism-ists have cried wolf so many times, and done so much harm to ordinary, decent people in the ensuing witch-hunts, that it's worth taking anything they say anymore with a rather sizeable grain of salt.
    
    Third, because one thing that's a legitimate voter ID everywhere is a driver's license/state ID card, and I've actually gone through the process of one, many times and in many places due to moving around for different jobs, and the process in no way fits the racism-ists' narrative of some massive, arduous ordeal that acts as a barrier to enfranchisement.
    
    Think back to the last time you did it. You go to the DMV, which is a few miles away from your house. Close enough that you could probably walk if you didn't have a car, or (depending on where you live) take the bus. Then you sit around for a long time waiting (and waiting and waiting...) for them to get around to you, and you pay the fee (about $20,) fill out the paperwork, and they send you your new ID card/driver's license in a few days. It's good for quite a while--how long depends on where you live, but generally between 3 and 10 years.
    
    The racism-ists' entire narrative falls apart when you think about it critically instead of simply accepting their wild accusations at face value. Stop to consider, for a moment, just how arduous it really is to, in the worst-case scenario, have to visit the DMV for a few hours and pay $20 once every 3 years. It's difficult to conceive of any scenario in which that presents an actual barrier to any legitimate American citizen, no matter how disadvantaged.
    
    So can we please drop the "voter suppression" conspiracy nonsense already? It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
      Watch this video to see who the real racists are. It is the people who think minorities are too ignorant to have and use the internet and to ignorant to know where and how to get and Id. The left has a very low opinion of minorities.
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llDM-44Zb8w
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        One thing I do know: every time I've gone to the DMV, wherever I'm living at the time, there are a lot of minorities there.
        
        Sure, I'm just one guy, but I'm a guy who's and moved around a lot, and I've never seen any compelling evidence to back up this narrative that's being pushed on us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        A narrative is exactly what it is and a false one at that. That is why the left is pushing the whole "fake" news agenda now. They control the mainstream media, except for Fox, but don't control the independent bloggers and YouTubers. Now they want to label them, as they love their labels, to control them. It won't work, they will be playing whack-a-mole. Also, more attempts at control and more name calling and labeling will only cost them more elections.
        
        http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-l ost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        There's this link again.
        
        And of all places, in a discussion about fake news.
        
        Can a conservative please chime in as to whether or not you guys actually trust politifact or not?
        
        If it's about Trump getting a mostly false rating for his clever use of statistics, they're not to be trusted.
        
        But this 900 seat link? It's right on the money.
        
        And it seems the dipshit that keeps re-posting it either doesn't have the balls to answer, or knows they've been caught calling politifact bullshit when it posts facts they don't want to see.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Attack the messenger and not the message. Awesome tactic. Nobody ever sees through that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        The question is simple - do you trust politifact or not?
        
        If you'd just answer, I could stop referring to you as "dipshit who refuses to answer" and come up with something else.
        
        You guys REALLY don't like being told you're inconsistent, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        I don't know what to think about the site as a whole but this article is spot on. The fact that you don't dispute it is telling in itself.
        
        Obama's legacy will be that he has built the most powerful Republican party in history.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        I don't know what to think about the site as a whole but this article is spot on.
        
        Well you're right - I don't dispute the article.
        
        However, I'd like to point out that as part of another discussion on "fake" news, when the article didn't specifically benefit Trump, you (or one of your brethren) took issue with (wait for it...wait for it...) the fact that they actually did the math, and it didn't match the math in Trump's little head. When they asked Trump, he responded in a similar way - do your own research.
        
        They did.
        
        And it didn't make him look good.
        
        Now I'm sure you love this article.
        
        But the fact that you (or someone very similar to you) called politifact a bullshit site when they published something not favorable to Herr Trump suggests you're not really interested in facts.
        
        You're interested in what you want to hear. Anything not falling in line with that is bullshit.
        
        That is what makes you look stupid as all fuck.
        
        Now do you see where I was going with this?
        
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161113/00431436029/let-them-eat-facts-why-fact-checking-is -mostly-useless-convincing-voters.shtml#c829
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Wasn't me. Not sure why it matters if it was though. Do you assume every article from any given site is correct? You probably do if they are from a leftist news source.
        
        So no, I don't see where you are going with this. I see you conflating two very different things and flailing around like a child because the article I posted shows huge loses in the Dem leadership. Your attitude here is exactly why they are suffering those losses. Retreat to your bubble and continue to lose or come to the table ready to talk policy without the name calling and labeling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        I'm just trying to find common ground on a site that we can all agree on isn't fake news.
        
        Seems like there's a 2-pronged uestion that you ask yourself when reading something.
        
        - Does it somehow slant against Trump?
        
        If yes - site bad. Liberal leftist media.
        If no - site good. Trusted news source.
        
        That's not the best way to cultivate facts, you know.
        
        Then again, now, at least Republicans will have to do some work in government for a change. I find it disturbing that you actually got paid over the last 8 years for doing nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        You are in a no win situation here.
        
        Everyone thinks someone is lying and they are all just a bunch of crackpots with conspiracy theories.
        
        Hell I have even been called a conspiracy nut more than once by Mike and I am not even advancing any conspiracy theories. Some people just like to over use words because it fits their narrative...
        
        Like calling people that want law and order a bunch of racists. These cards are so watered down they don't hold up anymore. They are not really interested in having a conversation, they just want you shut the fuck up and not have their ideas challenged just because...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Is it too much to hope for that the racism-ists will do a bit of introspection after all this, and maybe finally learn the meaning of the old tale of The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        I always say, never lose hope. Just avoid having too much faith in humanity. History shows that while we can generally live well together in groups, but when there is more than 1 group then friction sets things on fire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Racist, homophone, xenophobe, Islamophobe.... I'm so worn out with being called these things just because I don't agree with many of the Lefts political views and policies. It's like you either agree with them, or your a racist. I'm really sick of it.
        
        Tell you what Lefties; You want to call people names? Here's a big ole glass of Trump. Enjoy!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        I'm so worn out with being called these things just because I don't agree with many of the Lefts political views and policies.
        
        Fair enough - would you prefer throwback, redneck hick, with a borderline retarded IQ instead?
        
        I mean, we're trying to be nice...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        LOL. All that name calling worked out well for you in the election. Enjoy your Trump.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        How did that name calling work for you during the election? Not so good eh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Enjoy the next 4 years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Given that he's softened his stances on several of his policies, enjoy being played for the suckers you are.
        
        It ain't gonna be long before you see how full of orange shit he is.
        
        I thought you guys didn't like Mitt Romney?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Also. I hope someone from TechDirt reads this. The bullshit your pulling with your comment moderation is so hypocritical it's disgusting. I realize my positions don't fit real well with the people of this site, but I don't think it's deserving of being moderated. I tried several proxy servers, still moderated (I use PIA). I did a bit of research which led me to disable Flash, my post got through fine. Turn on flash again and I get moderated.
        
        Given the facts. It appears that you are using flash in an effort to identify people you don't like behind proxy servers and moderate their speech. I hope I'm wrong, but the facts remain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kal Zekdor (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Techdirt doesn't hold comments for moderation based on content, and doesn't try to silence people. The site does, however, try to promote honest discourse, and one of the things it tries to prevent is sock-puppet posting. Making multiple posts in the same thread with different email addresses will usually trigger manual review, which can take some time. Using proxies to attempt to get around that certainly wouldn't help. Just be patient, and eventually someone will get around to reviewing the posts, and in most cases they'll be approved.
        
        Note, though, that the techdirt community has an unfortunate tendency to abuse the report comment feature to hide comments they disagree with. That's unrelated to the site staff, though, and is entirely done by the users.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kal Zekdor (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        Those behind the various pushes for voter ID laws are not racist. (Well, probably. At least, there's no correlation there.) They are, however, purposefully attempting to make it harder for minorities to vote. This has been well documented. Now, they're not doing so because they hate said minorities and want to silence them, they're doing so because those groups tend to vote Democrat. This is politics, pure and simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        "They are, however, purposefully attempting to make it harder for minorities to vote."
        
        Minorities need ID to buy alcohol, firearms, open a bank account, file taxes, go to school, I could go on and on. Are those things trying to purposefully make it harder on minorities too? Or are they trying to protect our society as a whole?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kal Zekdor (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 9:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        People 35+ don't really need ID to buy alcohol/tobacco, not a whole lot of people actually own guns, there are plenty of people without bank accounts, you don't need an ID to file taxes, and school-age individuals can't vote...
        
        Several people behind some of the state voter ID laws have themselves admitted that the reason they were pursuing those laws was to suppress likely Democratic voters. If you really think these politicians care one whit for "protecting society", I've got a bridge to sell you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        W. Vann Hall (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        I'm not sure what the Politifact reference is supposed to prove -- other than the GOP was exceedingly successful at gerrymandering districts.
        
        Funny, you'd think the left-controlled mainstream media would be all over that -- that is, if the mainstream media were truly tools of the left.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        "they control the mainstream media, except for Fox"
        
        I am at a loss for words. If I were to describe what I just read it's like you're adamantly trying to convince me that dinosaurs never existed. That all this "fossil" nonsense is just a clever ploy by archaeologists; and you know all this because the guy selling you Bibles says it's true because it's written in the Bible.
        
        There is only one "conspiracy" with all mainstream media today and that is the all mighty Dollar. People are cutting cords, viewership is steadily declining so they'll say anything to get ratings. You can't honestly think they give a flying fuck what any party says or does they're just in it for you. You and others like you are the perfect commodity, you'll take anything you hear and spin these elaborate theories. They all sound so grand you practically want it to be true and others are so ready and willing to get on board.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
        "You can't honestly think they give a flying fuck what any party says or does"
        
        Wut? Influencing politics is one of the surest paths to acquiring more almighty dollars.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting
    Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?
    
    Of course not. As long as the people voting are actually, you know, supposed to be voting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:49am

Given the way the farce on an election has gone so far…
…it wouldn't surprise me if enough tampering was found to
prompt more recounts and a whole new fight in the electoral
college, then the Supreme Court "elects" Hillary in 2017…

…just sayin'… ‌ ‌ ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:50am

He followed that up with yet another tweet, claiming that the media is ignoring "serious voter fraud" in Virginia, New Hampshire and California

What a tragedy!

If only there was a means to initiate something that might get to the bottom of this. Something elusive and bizarre.

Like a recount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.T. Guy, 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:51am

"the press would be all over it"
I doubt it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95fr0PVhZVw

Doubt it very much.

Now what does not make sense is claiming that millions of illegals voted. If so how'd he win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wyrm (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  
  Now what does not make sense is claiming that millions of illegals voted. If so how'd he win?
  
  Oh, that one is easy: that's because, fortunately for him, it doesn't matter what millions of American voters want. Only a little more than 500 votes actually matter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:36pm
    
    Way to put your best foot forward there guys...
    Millions of votes do matter. They just matter in all 50 states. That's the catch. You can't just trash a big chunk of the population and get away with it.
    
    Forget about the fact that people still hate Hillary from when she was First Lady.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wyrm (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 5:57pm
      
      Re: Way to put your best foot forward there guys...
      It you want to make it technical, yes millions of votes do matter, but they don't "weigh" the same. Still a broken system you have there, particularly when one party can decide how much each vote weighs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  Interesting
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:53am

"Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts"

If you think the recounts make Clinton and Trump look terrible, you should have watched their campaigns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 8:56am

What better way to cover up election fraud than to participate in the recount. Let me tell you a few thing or two about fraud...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.T. Guy, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:01am

I fuking hate shitty reporting. Thats why I come here. But this "Gem:"
picked up by the crackpots at Infowars.
Lemme guess... you just read the headline? Didya actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, its obvious you didn't.)

NOWHERE in that article did it purport to agree with the statements being reported on by Steve Watson and made by Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.

That was just shitty "reporting" Mike.

But hey, its easier to make a claim for a "conspiracy theory" if you add Alex Jones to the mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  Lemme guess... you just read the headline? Didya actually read the article? (Rhetorical question, its obvious you didn't.)
  
  I absolutely did read the article. And it was conspiracy theory claptrap.
  
  NOWHERE in that article did it purport to agree with the statements being reported on by Steve Watson and made by Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
  
  Bullshit. It absolutely did agree with it. Nowhere did it point out that the claim had no evidence to back it up. Instead, the Infowars piece repeated the claims and then highlighted how it might mean Trump won the popular vote. It also repeated the silly and meaningless statistic about dead people on voter rolls -- which is a clear sign of a conspiracy theorist, since there is basically no evidence of dead people on voter rolls being used for fraud.
  
  I'm sorry, but the Infowars piece clearly pushed the totally bullshit claim that millions of people voted illegally. So, yeah, it's a crackpot conspiracy theory from a crackpot conspiracy site. Deal with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Biased much? Damn, I know there are a lot of questionable sites out there, but to keep calling things crackpot like that is bullshit.
    
    I have read a lot of sites and bias is everywhere. Yea, I have even been to infowars too! While the bias there is clear, I would not call it crackpot. Only someone with a certain bias would do that.
    
    In a way, you call your own objectivity into question, but I have been around long enough to know that you at least try better than some, but for a new person you might get a label that does not properly fit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Biased much? Damn, I know there are a lot of questionable sites out there, but to keep calling things crackpot like that is bullshit.
      
      I don't think "biased" means what you think it means.
      
      InfoWars is a crackpot conspiracy theory site. That's a fact.
      
      In a way, you call your own objectivity into question
      
      If someone calls my views into question because I call InfoWars a crackpot conspiracy site, well, too fucking bad. I don't need those kinds of people around.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't need those kinds of people around."
        
        Careful what you wish for, vitriol and bigotry are very blinding problems every human faces. You should consider conquering yours before you drive away others that will not want to stand next to you from the fallout alone. Not only that, but if all you do is spend your time preaching to the choir then your message will not get very far will it? It will die like the church that thinks membership should be exclusive.
        
        In a nutshell you are the exact problem with America. You have 'decided' that a certain group of people should be marginalized and ridiculed. Whether they are correct or not is besides the point when it gets to that level, but your constant need to raise the stakes means someone or something over there has your billy goat.
        
        You sound exactly like the left vs the right problem America has. Try engaging with a smile on your face instead of spit and vinegar. Besides, if they are a crackpot organization... why are you even wasting your time chatting about them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Project much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        quite often actually, just like you and everyone else.
        
        You got anything more significant in you repertoire or are you just a snippet of useless redundancy.
        
        Or in the words of Edward Norton in Fight Club
        "Or maybe you shouldn't bring me every little piece of trash you happen to pick up."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Careful what you wish for, vitriol and bigotry are very blinding problems every human faces. You should consider conquering yours before you drive away others that will not want to stand next to you from the fallout alone. Not only that, but if all you do is spend your time preaching to the choir then your message will not get very far will it? It will die like the church that thinks membership should be exclusive.
        
        There is no "bigotry" in calling out a crackpot conspiracy site for being a crackpot conspiracy site. Unlike many others in this thread, I'm not blaming "the left" or "the right" for anything.
        
        My views have remained entirely consistent. If some of you supported this site because we spoke out against Obama's many abuses, and when we called out Clinton's bullshit statements, you should also support us when we call out Trump's bullshit statements.
        
        That you seem to think that we've suddenly changed our position because the guy you like is in power, well, then the problem is on your end.
        
        Our position has remained consistent throughout. We have not become any more "political" nor have we changed our positions on anything. We've written about e-voting and voter fraud for well over a decade. This article is well within our wheelhouse. And we've called out politicians for saying bullshit things for just as long.
        
        If you can't handle someone who isn't rooting for a team, but is actually supporting civil liberties, free speech and innovation, then go find a safe space to go crawl in, rather than spending time here.
        
        In a nutshell you are the exact problem with America. You have 'decided' that a certain group of people should be marginalized and ridiculed. Whether they are correct or not is besides the point when it gets to that level, but your constant need to raise the stakes means someone or something over there has your billy goat.
        
        Which "group of people" have I decided should be marginalized and ridiculed? I have not. The only people I'm ridiculing are crackpots and liars. They deserve to be ridiculed, not because they're a part of a "group" I dislike, but because they're crackpots and liars.
        
        You sound exactly like the left vs the right problem America has. Try engaging with a smile on your face instead of spit and vinegar. Besides, if they are a crackpot organization... why are you even wasting your time chatting about them?
        
        You were perfectly happy with the exact same tone being used on this site when the guy you didn't like was in power.
        
        And the reason we're talking about InfoWars is because our President Elect seems to be using their crackpot conspiracy theories as the basis for making completely bullshit statements.
        
        That's kind of a big deal. How is this even up for debate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A couple of things. I am not saying you are blaming the left or the right, I am just saying you are acting like them. Big difference in my opinion.
        
        I do agree that your views are consistent, did I say otherwise? Why even bring it up?
        
        And yes, I do support you guys for calling out bullshit statements. But I do not support you doing it in a way that places a wedge in between people. Sure I am guilty of it too, but I do not have a massive platform so I get a much bigger pass with my biases than you, tough break I guess.
        
        And this part.
        "If you can't handle someone who isn't rooting for a team, but is actually supporting civil liberties, free speech and innovation, then go find a safe space to go crawl in, rather than spending time here."
        
        This is just terrible, you assume that my bitching and whining about your "quality of bias" makes me NOT on your team. Well all I can tell you is that you are wrong Mike, not the first time, won't be the last time either. I generally support TD's pieces on freedom and liberty, I just often disagree with what you think is a good solution to some of the problems like the FCC's net neutrality garbage rules.
        
        So in short, you and I agree on what the end result should looks like, just not on the process of getting there! So do yourself a favor and chillax bro! I am not going anywhere though I am sure you want me to! I have to stay here and help keep you honest... like I said in another post jokingly, its a team effort!
        
        So keep up the decent work and just remember, lil bitches like me will be around to run our mouths. We do appreciate you for it! Just remember, everyone else has something to say, even if you don't like it. Try no to let it bunch your speedo up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This is just terrible, you assume that my bitching and whining about your "quality of bias" makes me NOT on your team. Well all I can tell you is that you are wrong Mike, not the first time, won't be the last time either. I generally support TD's pieces on freedom and liberty, I just often disagree with what you think is a good solution to some of the problems like the FCC's net neutrality garbage rules."
        
        DUDE, read what he said, because you missed it. Mike's point is that there is NO TEAM being supported here at Techdirt in terms of political parties or candidates. It's not that we don't think YOU are on our team; we don't deal in the "teams" at all. That those that love the team aspect of politics keep trying to yank us into it isn't going to work. We'll happily criticize every one from every party or ever independent as we find things worth criticizing. If it happens to be YOUR team in the crosshairs, that doesn't make us biased against them, but your reaction to it makes you biased FOR them. This is what you keep missing....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Er nope, the team part you are talking about is not the team part I am talking about.
        
        When it comes to TD and Mike posting articles about the bullshit I am on his team. When Mike talks about people 'with certain viewpoints' needing to leave then Mike is talking about me not being on his team or wanting me to not be on his team. That is the team I am talking bout, not the idea that Mike needs to pick a team and bitch about one but not the other.
        
        Am I overestimating people? Cause I really hate that!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ron Wyden.
        
        That name alone kills the idea that there is no team. It's just not a team with a specific label
        
        Remember that when Wyden runs for president on a couple of cycles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's one of the few politicians who cares about our civil liberties, especially where surveillance is concerned.
        
        He was called out for blotting his copybook over TPP; we don't let him get away with messing up.
        
        I've also seen certain Republican politicians patted on the back for standing up against the surveillance state, e.g. Rand Paul.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Love your use of safe space. You do realize this is generally used in reference to liberals not wanting to be exposed to ideas they don't agree with don't you? Add to it that you are the one asking people to leave makes this statement even more ironic. You are usually much more reasoned than this. This is what happens when you let emotion ride over reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Padpaw (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well let me make this clear then. I have been watching this site for 6 years now and have enjoyed your generally neutral views on things.
        
        You are biased against Trump, how you write about him makes that very clear. In my opinion that bias is ruining the articles that you write about him. You are no longer looking at things objectively.
        
        If you don't want people on your site unless they agree with what you say, you're going to end up very lonely after a while.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree. I have been reading here for several years. I thought Mike's views on copyright, patents, etc. was crazy at first. But after learning about what is going on in those worlds, I have come over to his point of view. But now we have a deluge of politically motivated articles. Notice I said motivated. If the articles cover political appointments detrimental to tech policy, then that is fair game.
        
        But posts here are going way beyond that, including this one. The article starts out about how silly the recount is but then devotes 2/3 of the coverage to Trump who is against the recount. If the left didn't learn anything from this election cycle and wants to remain in their bubble, then so be it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have generally agreed with Mike's views on copyright and patents.
        
        I do generally like what he writes about as well. I always consider Mike's political leaning when reading his work. But you are right about it being concerning that he said he prefer people to leave. As a news organization the last people they should want to leave are the people they hate. I think this is what has been killing some of the other networks. Their pomposity, hubris, and bigotry disguised as superiority are driving people away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guys, come on. What Mike said is that if people are going to scream "Bias!" for his calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site, then those people can leave. That isn't a matter of politics. It isn't that Infowars peddles to the right wing; it's that their articles are entertainment in the form of conspiracy theories. They're no more news than is anything written by Jim Marrs or the anti-vaxxer folks. Again, those aren't matters of bias, they're matters of fact-based claims versus non-fact-based claims.
        
        As for the posts themselves being biased against Donald Trump.....please. PLEASE. We've lambasted every candidate in this idiotic election. I will come right out and tell you that I do not like Donald Trump at all. Nor did I like his chief opponent. So, if I write a post here that criticizes our President Elect, that doesn't mean I'm biased against him, it means I found something in him worth criticizing.
        
        And another thing: why is it that all the folks that constantly scream how everyone has a bias that always shines through can't see how their very belief in that calls into question the validity of their belief? If THEY have a bias (and they obviously do, by their own acknowledgement, since they think EVERYONE does), then their claim that everyone is biased might be a manifestation of THEIR bias, and now we're in Inception politics and I have to go throw up....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What Mike said is that if people are going to scream "Bias!" for his calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site, then those people can leave."
        
        That is a problem even if Mike is 100% correct. It has been my observation that everyone yelling Bias is Biased, and I agree to being biased. Plus there is just no reason to alienate any potential readers. You cannot have good instruction if the first thing you students learn about you is that you think they suck and they need to leave!
        
        But it has also been my observation that those denying bias are more biased than the accusers. No one has 100% of the facts, that creates Bias on its own. Just deciding what is an is not news worthy creates bias as well.
        
        Mike is biased, he just needs to admit it, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a word... apparently a word he does not understand the meaning of while calling others ignorant of it in hypocrisy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is a problem even if Mike is 100% correct. It has been my observation that everyone yelling Bias is Biased, and I agree to being biased. Plus there is just no reason to alienate any potential readers. You cannot have good instruction if the first thing you students learn about you is that you think they suck and they need to leave!
        
        Of course I have biases. And this is and always has been an opinion site in which I express my opinions. But calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site is not "bias." Facts are not "biased." InfoWars is a crackpot conspiracy theory site. Period.
        
        Am I biased? Sure. I'm biased in favor of free expression, innovation, and civil liberties. I'm biased in favor of expanding an open internet and supporting competition.
        
        I freely admit to these "biases." But having someone complain over calling InfoWars a crackpot site? That's ridiculous. If you don't think it's a crackpot site the problem is on your end, not mine.
        
        Mike is biased, he just needs to admit it, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a word... apparently a word he does not understand the meaning of while calling others ignorant of it in hypocrisy.
        
        I understand the word just fine. It does not mean what you think it means. I'm not "biased" against InfoWars. I just am properly describing what kind of site it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Am I biased? Sure. I'm biased in favor of free expression, innovation, and civil liberties. I'm biased in favor of expanding an open internet and supporting competition."
        
        This is Great Mike, it's exactly why I come to TD and read articles!
        
        "But having someone complain over calling InfoWars a crackpot site? That's ridiculous. If you don't think it's a crackpot site the problem is on your end, not mine."
        
        I suppose this is where I am different from most people. I don't think of Fox, CNN, CBS, InfoWars, or TD as misinformation sites but every one of them has an agenda. If they didn't have one, then why in fuck are they posting news?
        
        So no, I do not think infowars is a crackpot site any more than TD is a crackpot site. They have a spin, so do you. If they are wrong then they are wrong, no different than any other number of biased sites to wade through on the internet.
        
        I think I look at it like this...
        https://xkcd.com/386/
        
        So yea, I think even the most biased of sites have a place here and I don't let them get to me. I instead just discuss the immediate articles merits instead of the sites. Because often times, wisdom and truth may come from knaves and liars!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > I'm not "biased" against InfoWars. I just am properly describing what kind of site it is.
        
        Exactly. Someone saying that 2+2 equals 4 does not mean that they're biased against the number 5.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lol...
        
        just keep digging the hole.
        
        it only gets deeper!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, do you really think you're going to get to China like that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Well let me make this clear then. I have been watching this site for 6 years now and have enjoyed your generally neutral views on things.
        
        You are biased against Trump"
        
        You're not alone in this observation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You're not alone in this observation."
        
        I have no doubt this is true. I'm quite certain there are many, many people with this same incorrect thought....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that's it?
        
        Just walk about and telling people they are wrong and not even offer up why you think it? How about putting a little meat on the table Hoss!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What meat do you want? I write for this site regularly and I can say that I do not write with a bias against any particular party or candidate. I simply critique or discuss a particular issue at hand. It's really that simple. I'm generally critical of the subjects about which I write, but I don't pick and choose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Playing coy much? Tell us why you think that their observation of Mike being biased against Trump is the incorrect assumption?
        
        I have the same assumption. No that does not place Mike in Hillary's camp, but that thought is the typical knee-jerk reaction by most people because of the binary nature of politics in America.
        
        I did not vote this election cycle because I hated all of the candidates, does that make me more objective than the rest? Maybe, maybe not, but I still find bias against Trump, but you are free to tell me and the others where we are wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 3:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A site builds its reputation on dealing with facts and not conspiracy theories or politics as a team sport. Along come some politicians. A few generally base their public statements on facts. Another seems to base every public statement on a lie or conspiracy theory. All are called out whenever they stray from reality no matter who they are or which party they represent.
        
        It wouldn't be wrong to observe that they appear to be biased against the latter politician. However, it would be wrong to ascribe this to any change in stance or bias on the part of the site. It just means there's more to fairly criticise from one direction.
        
        If one driver speeds and illegally parks every day while his neighbours rarely do so, it's not unfair bias on the part of the police if that guy seem to get a lot more tickets than anyone else on his block.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People who do not fall down and worship Trump when the (host of musical instruments) are played are not necessarily biased against him — or in favour of Team Tweedledee. The man is a jerk and there's nothing wrong with calling him out for jerk-ery. If he gets something right he'll be patted on the back for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Biased is an *unfair* prejudice. Thinking someone is stupid who is on video using "it was on the internet" as an reason to believe something is 100% fair.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's what struck me. A fraud at the very local level is pretty much possible so I wouldn't be surprised if one or two voting mechanisms (be them physical or electronic) are rigged here and there so it would make sense for small, community elections. Not that this should not be addressed, by all means it should but the things get highly improbable once you have to scale things from a few hundred votes to a few million. And considering even the most staunch critics of Clinton and the Democrats I know were avoiding Trump like the plague, the fact that Trump, without any support from the establishment WON the elections seems to be groundbreaking evidence that THERE WAS NO FRAUD. And if there was it was negligible. Unless anybody here believes that trump had so much power that he could orchestrate fraud in a large scale. No really. The guy is a clown, a sad one but even then a clown.
    
    I could agree with many things that are bein said if Clinton had won but Trump? The establishment just couldn't handle this second 'brexit'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  I think he has trouble with his bias against trump that its slipping through to affect what he writes.
  
  If these keeps up I will have to find another tech website. As it's really getting annoying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, it is annoying and I am not even a Trump fan, but please don't leave. Mike has seen the light a few times while I have been here. The Redskins trademark issue is proof that Mike can be objective about things.
    
    It would be better for you to hang around and help keep Mike honest! It's a team effort with Mike... just picking!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sod it, I'm going to start selling hooded robes with "Make America great again" printed on them for Trump worshipers to buy while they march around chanting, "Hail unto Trump, our glorious leader, he can do no wrong. Send Hillary to jail."
    
    From what I'm seeing in the comments here I'd make a bloody fortune if I did.
    
    Seriously, give up the partisan nonsense. Neither side has any virtue worth splitting the nation over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:09am

The little people don't count (!)
... as it were ...

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing; the people who count the votes decide everything" -- Stalin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: The little people don't count (!)
  You must have something with which to occupy the masses. Human value the superficial more than anything else.
  
  See a movie star? Worship it.
  See a pile of cash? Kill for it.
  See a destitute human? Turn a cold shoulder to it.
  See an accused? Assume they are guilty!
  Want to pacify the fools? Give them a vote!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Snape (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:27am

It's legal for noncitizens to vote in California
Maybe people are making this claim because it's perfectly legal for non-citizens to vote illegally in California if you "believe" you voted legally.

Source: CA Election Code Section 2269. If a PERSON WHO IS INELIGIBLE TO VOTE becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be PRESUMED TO HAVE ACTED WITH OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION and SHALL NOT BE GUILTY OF FRAUDULENTLY VOTING or attempting to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
(Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2016.)

How many non-citizens voted in this last election that we can't prosecute because they "believe" they voted legally? And why do you think they pushed through the driver's license for non-citizens in California, while also supplying every newly-licensed driver with a voter registration form?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OldMugwump (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: perfectly legal for non-citizens to vote illegally in California
  If they registered.
  
  It's the duty of the registrar to verify eligibility to vote. If they screw up, the voter can't be prosecuted.
  
  That's all it says.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Snape (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re: perfectly legal for non-citizens to vote illegally in California
    So your position is: if someone commits a crime and the government doesn't stop them beforehand, they shouldn't be prosecuted?
    
    The previous section, 2268, addresses registration, by the way.
    2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.
    (Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 729, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2016.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 8:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: perfectly legal for non-citizens to vote illegally in California
      That is a silly non-argument.
      
      The registrar has a responsibility to ensure that the information provided is correct. Thus, it is not on the voter, but the registrar if things go awry. Unless you think being a registrar is a Wild West job with zero oversight, what are you talking about?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Snape (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: perfectly legal for non-citizens to vote illegally in California
        "Unless you think being a registrar is a Wild West job with zero oversight, what are you talking about?"
        
        I'm talking about registrars who don't have unlimited funds to seek out and verify every single voter registration they have to process.
        
        But if they "screw up" and don't verify a non-citizen's registration, the one who did the criminal act, the registrant, should be held accountable for their illegal act.
        
        So my "silly non-argument" is relevant and appropriate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve R. (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:01am
  
  Re: It's legal for noncitizens to vote in California
  Obama, on national TV, when asked about illegals voting (nationwide) refused to explicitly state that non-citizens do not have a right to vote. His silence on this easy to answer issue can be assumed to imply that he would be comfortable with non-citizens voting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: It's legal for noncitizens to vote in California
    That is a conspiracy. Obama conspiring with non-citizens!
    
    It could also be that the government cannot prevent states from allowing counties to allow non-citizen voting (see Maryland, which Trump suspiciously didn't mention).
    
    Screw it. I call conspiracy in spite of evidence against it!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:43am

laughingstock of the world.

banana republics are pointing and laughing at us. as they should. as should the whole world. we've high-horsed for generations, but we've pulled back our own curtain, now, to show the world what buffoons really look like.

pity peter sellers isn't here to play the role of the u.s. in a farce. he would be licking his chops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Every Nation is run by buffoons, no exception. The very act of creating a Government is buffoonery as its base element.
  
  The only thing we did was prove that we are every bit the buffoon the rest are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MadAsASnake (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  Trump isn't a patch on Boris Johnson for buffoonery - by comparison, Trump is just a bigot and an idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:40pm
  
  Roll out the Barrel.
  It's like Bismarck and said. Government and sausages are two things you don't want to see made. Government is an ugly business on a good day. Democracy makes things extra ugly. All sorts of "undesirable people" get their say.
  
  That's just the way it is. If you can't handle that, then you're basically advocating for something else.
  
  People in banana republics don't understand democracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:52am

"Millions of illegal votes would require a conspiracy larger than all previous conspiracy theories combined."

Agreed that Trump does himself no favors when he wades into this scrum; however, this statement is obviously false. All that is required for millions of illegal voters to cast votes is a system that does not try very hard to stop them.

And guess what? We have such a system. We do virtually nothing to ensure all voters are legally entitled to vote. Your statement that the media would be all over it is a fantasy, you made it up. The president himself went on national television to encourage illegal voting. That's not private information, it took no sleuthing to find it, it's quite public and the media yawned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  Agreed. A media that was demonstrably in the back pocket of the DNC is supposed to be the watch dogs of an honest election? Wikileaks has exposed the corruption of the DNC and media and the genie will not go back in the bottle. That is why there is the new effort by the left to stop "fake" news. Fake being any news they don't control and especially any news that helps conservatives get their voices heard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It would be interesting that the reason that the Media would not report on it because in their mind, their side is the biggest voting fraudsters around and any attempt to uncover it would do far more damage to their side than a stupid Presidential victory.
    
    And considering that Obama himself told illegals to vote... I mean how much more blatant get you get?
    
    This is truly the Emperors New Clothes level of shit right there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- W. Vann Hall (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  
  We do virtually nothing to ensure all voters are legally entitled to vote.
  
  Tens of thousands of county registrars would respectfully disagree with that assessment.
  
  Especially as you also reference such nonsense as
  
  The president himself went on national television to encourage illegal voting. That's not private information, it took no sleuthing to find it, it's quite public and the media yawned.
  
  True, it takes very little sleuthing to find this claim, which speaks mainly to the obscene amount of influence Fox News has in this country -- and the lavish and simple-minded propensity of right-wing websites to parrot whatever garbage rubs their tummies without even the least pretense of fact-checking. (Personally, before I quoted a source with so well-known a history of spreading bullshit and lies as Fox News, I'd double- or triple-check it, rather than risk damaging my credibility. Of course, if I was, say, breitbart or WND or similar rot and had no credibility left to sully, I guess I wouldn't worry.)
  
  However, it takes just as little sleuthing to discover this claim was based on a misleadingly edited video aired by Fox. (And, admittedly, to an atypically convoluted reply Obama made to a nearly incoherent question posed by an 'actress and rapper' on an extremely fringe cable channel.) Watching all of the interview -- as it was aired, not as it was hacked to death by Fox -- makes it clear Obama is speaking to U.S. citizens of Latin-American origin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:15am

Let's assume there's voter fraud
If we assume that there's actual voter fraud going on, what's the result?
Would the "millions of voters" (as Trump claimed) really change the result? Or would those millions of votes basically match the distribution as the real votes?
In other words, how can any party say the fraudulent votes will only help the other party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:46am
  
  Re: Let's assume there's voter fraud
  > how can any party say the fraudulent votes will only help the other party?
  
  Generally, the fewer people that vote the more favorable it is to Republican candidates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re: Let's assume there's voter fraud
    
    Generally, the fewer people that vote the more favorable it is to Republican candidates.
    
    This would seem to not hold up against the facts: the 2016 election had the highest voter turnout in recent memory, and across the board--not just in the Presidential vote--the Republican party won in a landslide.
    
    As I've said before on here, it was pretty much inevitable, as it's the Republicans' turn to screw things up now. It's a clear pattern that's been going on for decades in American politics: we didn't like Bush Sr. raising taxes after saying "read my lips, no new taxes," so we threw him and his party out and elected Clinton, who was even worse. We got sick of his endless scandals, so we threw him and his party out and elected W, who was even worse. We got sick of his moronic antics and endless wars, so we threw him and his party out and elected Obama, who was even worse. (Are you seeing a pattern yet?) Then we got sick of him and his party causing trouble for us with health care, race relations, civil rights, and oh-by-the-way not doing anything to put an end to the endless wars he campaigned on opposing, so we threw him and his party out and elected Trump, who is almost guaranteed to be even worse.
    
    Anyone who was surprised by Trump's victory is simply not paying attention.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - W. Vann Hall (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's assume there's voter fraud
      
      the Republican party won in a landslide.
      
      Yes, if by 'in a landslide' you mean 'lost the popular vote by over 2 million' or '[presumably] won the Electoral College by the third-smallest margin in 40 years | the smallest margin in any election not involving George W. Bush in 40 years | the fifth-smallest margin in 100 years.'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mason Wheeler (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's assume there's voter fraud
        No, I specifically and quite clearly meant "the Republican party and not simply the Republican presidential candidate." Please look over what I wrote again, with a bit more reading comprehension this time, as I was clearly referring to all the elections rather than simply the one that you're focusing on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Padpaw (profile), 28 Nov 2016 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's assume there's voter fraud
        I think both parties lost considering 50% of americans chose not to vote.
        
        How do you consider a 26% win a win if 50% chose to not even give you a chance to begin with
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Snape (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 1:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's assume there's voter fraud
      ...we didn't like Bush Sr. raising taxes after saying "read my lips, no new taxes," so we threw him and his party out and elected Clinton...
      
      No! You misunderstood!
      
      Bush Sr. said, "Read my lips, know new taxes!"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:41am

only thing we did was prove that we are every bit the buffoon the rest are

oh, absolutely. i guess i didn't think it need be said, but really it should be noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:45am

i mean, after lifetimes of sneering and looking down our collective nose at the rest of the world we finally pull down our pants and show we have exactly the same stupid, tiny accessories that everybody has.

are we going to acknowledge that by treating the rest of the world as equals? give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claire Rand, 28 Nov 2016 @ 10:57am

Anything you can do...
Us in the UK can also do, in a halfway incompetent way.

Look up 'Tower Hamlets', mayor banned for electoral fiddling, only ended up in the courts after private citizens brought the action when the authorities were firmly turning a blind eye.

And are now trying to bankrupt the ones who brought the case to deter others trying.

As soon as you have an election someone, somewhere is on the fiddle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re:

. . . gently down the stream.

i hate it when dumbasses don't make clear who and what they are responding to. grab a little bit of what you want to comment on, so the rest of us are in on the joke, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  Before calling someone a dumbass, you should change your view to threaded instead of flattened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 11:03am

Why is the left so angry?
For the most part, the left think we are one big cosmic accident. So we get one trip through this world with no eternal consequences. Yet they spend their lives bitter, angry and unhappy. They should be partying like it is 1999. If we are but an accident, there is no right and wrong, only Mon rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 1:27pm

Dear Mike,
Mike,

Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be implying we make the logical leap from "there is no evidence of serious voter fraud" to "there is no serious voter fraud" - and that would be terrible reasoning. The furthest "there is no evidence" takes us is "there is no proof".

I also find your condescending tone and dismissiveness towards the possibility of serious voter fraud (and to those calling into question the official narrative) to be a tad arrogant. Please consider toning it down a bit.

I hope you'll also consider the following...

1) There can be many reasons for the lack of evidence other than the lack of crime.
2) If the voter fraud is performed properly, it wouldn't necessarily need to be significant in scale to have a "serious" impact and tip the results one way or the other.

I build and audit financial systems for a living. Trust me when I say, whether a given system (e.g., voting) has actually been criminally manipulated or not is absolutely beside the point. Our primary concern should be whether or not it COULD BE criminally manipulated. Period. End of discussion. Because if there is value to be had in gaming a system - you can be certain - it will be gamed.

AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re: Dear Mike,
  Well said!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 2:47pm

Pedal error?
"All claims that election machines were rigged were because of poorly calibrated machines or ***user error.***"

"Unintended acceleration" was caused by "pedal error", rather than by the nut behind the wheel.

The law doesn't allow discrimination against low IQ voting, but there are de facto limits on low IQ voting due to pencil error, location error, name error, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 3:41pm

Your criticism of people for requesting recounts as being "sore losers" is too emotional, even playgroundish. It's too much fake drama. As security researchers have urged, there should be recounts in close races simply to verify and audit the system. This should be supported routinely by both sides. Making it depend on a smoking gun, questioning people's motivations, or getting too tense about the cost are a distraction from what's important.

Now, what the cutoff should be -- I don't know. I've read that 0.5% is the cutoff for a legally mandated recount in some states. That covers only Michigan among the three. Given the acrimony, a higher cutoff seems sensible to me. Inspection is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2016 @ 7:42pm

If Hillary Clinton had won, the media wouldn't be crying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 12:22am
  
  Sure it would…
  …Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars and a lot of other false news
  sites would start a screaming campaign from Nov. 9 for roughly
  four years, then raise the volume for four more years.
  
  That's who they are and what they do for a living.‌ ‌ ‌;] ‌
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 1:57am

A bit late to the party....
Step 1 is to have the general public to accept that there is some fraud involved in the voting process but it's so small that it's irrelevant. Step 2 is to ramp it up so it becomes relevant but not significant. Step 3, win/profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 2:22am

What about the people in Wisconsin who had to submit their ballots three times because the machine kept voting for Hillary instead of Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 8:43am

Recount
So, two million and growing is irrelevant? How about if 90% of all voters favored Clinton and T-rump lost? Would it still
be irrelevant?

Maybe T-rump won, but two million and growing definitely justifies a recount!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: Recount
  "I don't care if my team lost 4 games out of 7; they scored more runs overall, and that makes *them* the *real* winners of the World Series!"
  
  Nope, sorry. That's simply not how it works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 30 Nov 2016 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re: Recount
    What about "the coach of the winning team has been claiming that the games were rigged both before and after it was played, is insisting that his team scored more runs despite the recorded scoreline and some of the live footage wasn't correctly broadcast"?
    
    Wouldn't that make a review of the recordings of the more questionable innings at least something worth considering?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

Trump Telecom Advisor Doesn't Think Broadband Monopolies Are Real, Wants To Dismantle The FCC

Media Critic Calls On Journalists To Be Obedient Stenographers

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

Somehow Everyone Comes Out Looking Terrible In The Effort For Election Recounts

from the you're-not-helping dept

Reader Comments

Not totally serious, but...

Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Cry me a river.

Re: Re: Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re: Not totally serious, but...

Re:

zzzzz

Re: zzzzz

Re: Re: zzzzz

The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Just so you know…

Re: Just so you know…

That's where YOU went, son, all on your own…

Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Regarding that whole "poor" thing.

Re: Regarding that whole "poor" thing.

Re: Re: Regarding that whole "poor" thing.

Re: Re: Re: Regarding that whole "poor" thing.

Re: Making it easier for people to vote is a good thing. You disagree?

Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Laughable Postion of Democrats on the Integrity of Voting