Florida Recount in Senate Race?

[carpedm9587]

I think the problem of this rationale is that we have no idea how many "undocumented" cases there are. The documented ones are, obviously, "only those who got caught".

And the problem with that observation, CP, is that we do not usually implement disruptive solutions to problems we cannot show actually exist. And it turns out to be suspiciously convenient that this "solution" so strongly pushed for by so many from the right is documented to have a majority impact on voters that tend to vote left.

It's not like loss prevention in a department store, where even though you can't catch all the shoplifters, inventory can indicate what losses are occurring. Kinda like when TSA is checking for stuff, and a simple "test" shows that there are all kinds of things that get through.

Should TSA stop checking because there are so FEW documented cases of bombs being detected, and they miss so many test items?

Don't get me started on the TSA. Yes - I think they should be discontinued (as implemented). This is the most horrendously expensive form of security theater I have ever seen. If we are going to be serious about airline security, that entire system needs to be overhauled. I can think of no other system that can show a consistent 90-95% penetration rate and still considered to be viable by anyone.

(I think I may have opened a whole 'nuter 55 gallon drum of worms. )

Probably.

[Cow Poke]

And the problem with that observation, CP, is that we do not usually implement disruptive solutions to problems we cannot show actually exist.

And the problem with that observation, Carpe, is that you grossly exaggerate the extent to which the solution had to be disruptive.

[carpedm9587]

And the problem with that observation, Carpe, is that you grossly exaggerate the extent to which the solution had to be disruptive.

Actually - I don't. I don't think ANY solution "HAS" to be disruptive. But they generally seem to be, in election cycle after election cycle. We see thousands of documented cases where people cannot vote because the rules changed in a way that made it confusing/hard to meet requirements, or people were "purged" with little/no notice. Add to that the frequent closure of polling places to "save money," but they almost always seem to be in poor/minority districts, shortened hours (for the same purpose and with the same effect), and what begins to emerge is a party intent on "winning at any cost," even if it means denying the vote to valid voters. The numbers affected are orders of magnitude larger than the demonstrated cases of actual fraud.

Don't get me wrong, CP, I do not know if you yourself have this position. Based on our discussions, I tend to think you are genuinely concerned about "voter fraud." But I also think it's because your leaders have done a massive con-job on you, and you have accepted the argument with not as much critical examination as I think it deserves. While there are indeed some examples of "voter disenfranchisement" that have not panned out, most of the ones I have checked out have. And that includes the ND reservations you and I discussed earlier. I accepted your argument on the basis of the various maps you linked to. What I failed to consider is that the existence of SOME maps with valid street addresses does not translate to the argument that ALL maps were such. As best I can tell, defenders of the proposition circulated links to reservations where street addresses were commonplace, making the argument "see - they have addresses." They ignored the maps that were in the court case that showed the locations where they did NOT have such addresses, and the streets were marked "unknown" or "undefined." They also ignored the numerous places where the administrators themselves said, "this was fairly recent, and probably has not had to to sift down into the tribal culture/processes as yet.

[Cow Poke]

Actually - I don't. I don't think ANY solution "HAS" to be disruptive. But they generally seem to be, in election cycle after election cycle. We see thousands of documented cases where people cannot vote because the rules changed in a way that made it confusing/hard to meet requirements, or people were "purged" with little/no notice. Add to that the frequent closure of polling places to "save money," but they almost always seem to be in poor/minority districts, shortened hours (for the same purpose and with the same effect), and what begins to emerge is a party intent on "winning at any cost," even if it means denying the vote to valid voters. The numbers affected are orders of magnitude larger than the demonstrated cases of actual fraud.

And, if it weren't for the extreme battling of the left, these solutions could be worked in more appropriately.

Don't get me wrong, CP, I do not know if you yourself have this position. Based on our discussions, I tend to think you are genuinely concerned about "voter fraud."

I'm not a fraud alarmist - I just think it makes perfectly good sense to give 'voting' the same respect we give air travel or driving or home ownership or anything else that requires we identify who we are. I ROUTINELY help undocumented people become documented - why? Because I care about them, and they need ID to do other useful things in society --- like open a bank account.

But I also think it's because your leaders

My leaders?

have done a massive con-job on you...

This last part, quite frankly, is steaming load of condescending horsie poo.

[Mountain Man]

Of course you did. You are (pretty selectively) electing to interpret to fit your story. What the sentence actually says, however, is that the strategy was that the ballots would only be included if a judge approves. The rest you are adding.

No, the individual in question straight up admitted that they were hoping to collect as many absentee ballots as possible using the fraudulently "altered" forms and were hoping the judge would approve them. I'm not interpreting anything; that's literally what he said. I'm just taking the individual's statement at face value.

[carpedm9587]

No, the individual in question straight up admitted that they were hoping to collect as many absentee ballots as possible using the fraudulently "altered" forms and were hoping the judge would approve them. I'm not interpreting anything; that's literally what he said. I'm just taking the individual's statement at face value.

"Fraudulently altered" is another thing you're adding to the article. So, here's a perfectly viable scenario that fits the facts as presented in the article:

The deadline for altering things was set to November 5. The people involved were hoping that the Judge would extend the deadline to Saturday (the 8th), which is exactly what the judge did. Waiting until the ruling would have resulted in a shorter period of time to get the altered forms out, so they changed the date and sent the forms in advance, hoping the judge would rule in that direction and they could use the ballots. The entire article says that the situation was being submitted "for investigation for fraud," which is perfectly reasonable - someone needs to ask if jumping the gun on a hoped-for ruling constitutes fraud. Frankly, if the judge had not ruled for the 8th, the revised "affadavits" would have been useless because they would have had an incorrect date.

You are piling on assumption after assumption that is simply not defended by the article. What we KNOW from the article is:

1) The documents had an altered date
2) The perpetrators hoped to get a positive ruling that would allow their use
3) The alteration was before the judge issued the ruling
4) The situation is being submitted for investigation of possible fraud

Anything over and above this (including my "perfectly viable scenario") is assumption. We will know better when the investigation about fraud is executed and the results announced.

[carpedm9587]

And, if it weren't for the extreme battling of the left, these solutions could be worked in more appropriately.

I think we can safely chalk this up to stubbornness on both sides. I don't see the actors on the left as being any more complicit than the actors on the right.

I'm not a fraud alarmist - I just think it makes perfectly good sense to give 'voting' the same respect we give air travel or driving or home ownership or anything else that requires we identify who we are. I ROUTINELY help undocumented people become documented - why? Because I care about them, and they need ID to do other useful things in society --- like open a bank account.

I don't disagree. I am also engaged - though not as much as you I think. I have also had to deal with several situations where we have been working on getting ID for over 2 years, and still have not successfully done so. I'm very curious - have you never encountered such a situation?

My leaders?

I use the term to refer to the leadership of the left/right respectively. This is the crowd putting out the hyped and misleading stories that get the rank and file on the left and right to bite indiscriminately, and then become the vocal mouthpieces of those inaccurate and extreme messages.

This last part, quite frankly, is steaming load of condescending horsie poo.

I would like to know how one says to someone, "I think you've been had by skewed messaging," in a way that doesn't sound condescending. After all - the implication is that someone was "taken," which implies being susceptible to a con. It doesn't mean I think you're naive; we've all "been had" at one point or another in our lives - and have bought into something for any number of reasons (we wanted it to be true, the story was compelling and tugged some heartstrings, we wanted to be accepted by those taking the position, etc.).

[Mountain Man]

"Fraudulently altered" is another thing you're adding to the article.

Not at all. Altering official forms in the manner described is against the law. Calling them "fraudulent" is 100% accurate.

Jake Sanders, a Democratic consultant in the Treasure Coast who saw the email, told the USA TODAY NETWORK - Florida that he warned party staffers about the legality of using an altered form, but was ignored.

"I warned FDP staff members of the questionable legal status of altering a state form and misleading people their vote would be counted before the court case played out," Sanders said. "And coordinated campaign leadership told them to keep pushing it that, 'We are exhausting every possibility.'"

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/new...ts/2009178002/

Democrat party leaders knew exactly what they were doing.

[carpedm9587]

Not at all. Altering official forms in the manner described is against the law. Calling them "fraudulent" is 100% accurate.

Jake Sanders, a Democratic consultant in the Treasure Coast who saw the email, told the USA TODAY NETWORK - Florida that he warned party staffers about the legality of using an altered form, but was ignored.

"I warned FDP staff members of the questionable legal status of altering a state form and misleading people their vote would be counted before the court case played out," Sanders said. "And coordinated campaign leadership told them to keep pushing it that, 'We are exhausting every possibility.'"

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/new...ts/2009178002/

Democrat party leaders knew exactly what they were doing.

You keep posting things that refute the very argument you are making. "Questionable legal status" does not mean "illegal." It means it is likely to be called out for review - as it has been, and may be found to be illegal - which means it also may be found to be perfectly legal. We will know which it is when that investigation is complete and the results known.

But then again - I'm not really surprised to hear someone from the far right calling for summary judgment without due process. After all - it's a hallmark of your "leader," and his base has bought into it wholesale. All of this from the "constitution loving and respecting" members of the right.

The irony is somewhat mind boggling, MM. But I am reasonably sure THAT is not going to be acknowledged.

(P.S. Altering a form is not implicitly illegal. What is illegal is altering it with the intention to defraud. That intent has not been shown here).

[Cow Poke]

I think we can safely chalk this up to stubbornness on both sides. I don't see the actors on the left as being any more complicit than the actors on the right.

Yet, this always seems to be cast as a "the right is corrupt" thing --- it is, indeed, an issue that BOTH sides seem to prefer to use a political football rather than really solve problems. Same thing with the border.

I don't disagree. I am also engaged - though not as much as you I think. I have also had to deal with several situations where we have been working on getting ID for over 2 years, and still have not successfully done so. I'm very curious - have you never encountered such a situation?

I have not yet encountered a situation where I haven't been able to get somebody "documented", but I'm mostly working with people who were, at one time, "legal", and either lost their ID, got scammed or "ID thefted", or otherwise simply didn't have sufficient ID. And I have a couple of local judges who know me and help me cut some red tape.

I use the term to refer to the leadership of the left/right respectively. This is the crowd putting out the hyped and misleading stories that get the rank and file on the left and right to bite indiscriminately, and then become the vocal mouthpieces of those inaccurate and extreme messages.

I gave up on the right and the left long ago - I don't have much faith in any of these "leaders". To me, most of them are simply in it for themselves.

I would like to know how one says to someone, "I think you've been had by skewed messaging," in a way that doesn't sound condescending.

How bout asking instead of assuming?

After all - the implication is that someone was "taken," which implies being susceptible to a con. It doesn't mean I think you're naive; we've all "been had" at one point or another in our lives - and have bought into something for any number of reasons (we wanted it to be true, the story was compelling and tugged some heartstrings, we wanted to be accepted by those taking the position, etc.).

One of the reasons I engage with extreme leftist pinko commie devils* like you is to challenge my assumptions. I'm very much working on my own confirmation bias.





*CP is being rather purposefully Drama Queenish here, which in no way implies that he is a Queen, or that 'Queen' implies he is a homosexual - or female - as one of our nuttier triggered anti-Christian bigots seems to assume.

[Mountain Man]

"Questionable legal status" does not mean "illegal."

It pretty much means exactly that.

[carpedm9587]

It pretty much means exactly that.

In your mind...apparently. I guess you feel comfortable redefining "questionable" to mean "definitely illegal." After all - it fits your narrative.

For myself - I'll wait for the results of the investigation before taking a position.

[One Bad Pig]

It pretty much means exactly that.

Remember who you're talking with.

[Mountain Man]

Remember who you're talking with.

That's why I included the winky face.

[carpedm9587]

Remember who you're talking with.

Seriously, OBP? You too are redefining "questionable" to mean "illegal?"

And then you guys have the audacity to tell me I redefine words?

questionable: doubtful as regards truth or quality - not clearly honest, honorable, or wise

In both cases, "doubt" is the key.

But if you want to redefine terms to suit your narrative...