"Extremism" and "Radical"

2,791 Views | 61 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by Harrison Bergeron
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I realize that the truth too often doesn't matter, especially if a lie is repeated often enough and there may actually be a grain of truth. I hope others read the information below and that they will look for weak links which we might be able to discuss. I work the polls and I directly participate in carrying out the instructions with at least one other person of the opposite party.

Voting machines are among the most tightly controlled and closely monitored equipment in use today. Distrust often stems from misunderstandings or deliberate misinformation about how they work. From pre-election testing to post-election audits, every step is checked and double-checked, usually by bipartisan teams of election officials.

The Facts
Voting equipment involves multiple, overlapping layers of security safeguards.

Voting and tabulation machines aren't connected to the internet. Air-gapped networks ensure that voting and tabulation machines are not connected to the public internet, which sharply reduces the possibility of tampering.

We'll say it again for the cheap seats: Election equipment is not connected to the internet.

Paper ballots provide physical backups. Most jurisdictions use voter-verifiable paper ballots, which lets voters confirm their choices and provides a reliable physical backup for audits and recounts. Even jurisdictions that offer voting on digital equipment (for example, a device for visually impaired voters) typically issue a paper receipt.

Logic and accuracy testing ensures that tabulators are counting correctly. Before and after each election, officials test machines with sample ballots to ensure that they are tabulating races correctly.

These tests are often monitored by political party representatives, who sometimes even participate directly in the ballot counting and marking process, and usually must sign certificates of completion.

Physical access to the equipment is tightly controlled. Voting equipment is stored in locked, monitored locations with limited access and plentiful surveillance. While not in use, equipment is physically sealed with barcoded or numerically stamped tamper-evident seals that can only be broken in the presence of a bipartisan team.

Strict chain of custody protocols are non-negotiable. Every handoff of election equipment is tracked and logged by bipartisan teams to document who accessed them, when, and why.

Post-election audits. Many jurisdictions double-check results after the election by comparing machine counts with paper records.

Bottom Line
Election equipment is heavily tested, controlled, and checked for accuracy. Much of the public distrust comes from confusion or false claims about how they operate and what kind of protections are in place. These machines go through strict testing before the election and careful audits afterward, with bipartisan teams watching every step.

For additional resources or to talk to an expert, please contact Dan Rafter at dan@responsivegov.org.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

I realize that the truth too often doesn't matter, especially if a lie is repeated often enough and there may actually be a grain of truth. I hope others read the information below and that they will look for weak links which we might be able to discuss. I work the polls and I directly participate in carrying out the instructions with at least one other person of the opposite party.

Voting machines are among the most tightly controlled and closely monitored equipment in use today. Distrust often stems from misunderstandings or deliberate misinformation about how they work. From pre-election testing to post-election audits, every step is checked and double-checked, usually by bipartisan teams of election officials.

The Facts
Voting equipment involves multiple, overlapping layers of security safeguards.

Voting and tabulation machines aren't connected to the internet. Air-gapped networks ensure that voting and tabulation machines are not connected to the public internet, which sharply reduces the possibility of tampering.

We'll say it again for the cheap seats: Election equipment is not connected to the internet.

Paper ballots provide physical backups. Most jurisdictions use voter-verifiable paper ballots, which lets voters confirm their choices and provides a reliable physical backup for audits and recounts. Even jurisdictions that offer voting on digital equipment (for example, a device for visually impaired voters) typically issue a paper receipt.

Logic and accuracy testing ensures that tabulators are counting correctly. Before and after each election, officials test machines with sample ballots to ensure that they are tabulating races correctly.

These tests are often monitored by political party representatives, who sometimes even participate directly in the ballot counting and marking process, and usually must sign certificates of completion.

Physical access to the equipment is tightly controlled. Voting equipment is stored in locked, monitored locations with limited access and plentiful surveillance. While not in use, equipment is physically sealed with barcoded or numerically stamped tamper-evident seals that can only be broken in the presence of a bipartisan team.

Strict chain of custody protocols are non-negotiable. Every handoff of election equipment is tracked and logged by bipartisan teams to document who accessed them, when, and why.

Post-election audits. Many jurisdictions double-check results after the election by comparing machine counts with paper records.

Bottom Line
Election equipment is heavily tested, controlled, and checked for accuracy. Much of the public distrust comes from confusion or false claims about how they operate and what kind of protections are in place. These machines go through strict testing before the election and careful audits afterward, with bipartisan teams watching every step.

For additional resources or to talk to an expert, please contact Dan Rafter at dan@responsivegov.org.

Do you think 60 Minutes is intentionally spreading disinformation with this story? Would you no longer consider it a reliable news source since it seems to be spreading disinformation?

Similar with ABC - do you think it intentionally spreads disinformation?

BTW - do you post stuff from Dan Rather to be ironic of funny ... the guy that is known solely for making up news to attack Republicans, the modern OG of disinformation? Surely you did not on purpose as an inside joke, no?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS: " Voting machines are among the most tightly controlled and closely monitored equipment in use today."

Untrue, not even close.

A big part of the arguments going on now, is that depending on the election both Republicans and Democrats have at various times complained that voting machines are not secure.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

No, he is simply observing that 'humane' and 'moral' as you used them are very subjective.

Why are you getting so upset about a reasonable ask for defining terms so everyone can be on the same footing?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

No, he is simply observing that 'humane' and 'moral' as you used them are very subjective.

Why are you getting so upset about a reasonable ask for defining terms so everyone can be on the same footing?

upset????
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.

So, what part of empathy and compassion is confusing to you? Pretty clear. Humane is a common word. And in law it is a binding standard. That is not subjective.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

No, he is simply observing that 'humane' and 'moral' as you used them are very subjective.

Why are you getting so upset about a reasonable ask for defining terms so everyone can be on the same footing?

upset????


Well, you are petulant at the least, perhaps to the point of dudgeon.

If you weren't, you could set out what you see as standard definitions of those words, and we could have a conversation.

Doesn't seem that's what you want, though ...
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.

So, what part of empathy and compassion is confusing to you? Pretty clear. Humane is a common word. And in law it is a binding standard. That is not subjective.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well of course, if they say it then it has to be true.
Does the truth really matter when someone already believes a lie? I didn't really think the truth would do any good but I wanted to try. I have worked at various polling positions for years. I am curious if any one else has.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Well of course, if they say it then it has to be true.
Does the truth really matter when someone already believes a lie? I didn't really think the truth would do any good but I wanted to try. I have worked at various polling positions for years. I am curious if any one else has.


The problem is threefold:

1) Public trust is very low right now, and has been for a long time. There is little belief that the people in power really want to address the problem;

2) Possible interference can happen at precinct level, state election offices, and of course the voting machines are suspect;

3) the media loves a good story, and the Internet is all about attention, not serious consideration.

It's a stinking mess.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.

So, what part of empathy and compassion is confusing to you? Pretty clear. Humane is a common word. And in law it is a binding standard. That is not subjective.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.

You are incorrect on both moral and humane they are not subjective definitions; both are stated and defined in the law and used. Legal definitions are binding. You may not like the definitions or agree that with their legal use. But neither is "subjective" in use for law or policy.

Also, not ALL politicians are inconsistent or self-serving, once again your opinion. It is fine to have opinions, but to pontificate them as fact and throw your believes around as logic equations is not.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

FLBear5630 said:

in this case I would say going beyond legal, moral or humane levels, inconsistency of use (on a whim) or self-serving nature of actions.

Again, you have to define terms:
1. Legal - definable (assuming the laws of the United States)
2. Moral - how do you define moral? Christian morality?
3. Humane - what does that even mean? Whose definition?

"Inconsistency" and "self-serving" - would that not make every politician "radical" and "extreme." Thousands of examples from every politician are easily presented.

Do you think this is the correct definition?

Yes, extremist policy and actions can fit into those categories.

You are kidding me with the definition of humane, right? So, you think that the Government should not take empathy and compassion into its carrying out of actions.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.

So, what part of empathy and compassion is confusing to you? Pretty clear. Humane is a common word. And in law it is a binding standard. That is not subjective.

Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.

You are incorrect on both moral and humane they are not subjective definitions; both are stated and defined in the law and used. Legal definitions are binding. You may not like the definitions or agree that with their legal use. But neither is "subjective" in use for law or policy.

Also, not ALL politicians are inconsistent or self-serving, once again your opinion. It is fine to have opinions, but to pontificate them as fact and throw your believes around as logic equations is not.



Again, you avoid specifics and replace them with emotion. You completely avoid the specifics in favor of "yelling at clouds." It's not personal - I am just trying to glean whether anyone can actually articulate what they post.

Define "moral."
Define "humane."

Since - I think it is fair - that every politician is "inconsistent" and "self-serving" do you think every politician is "radical" and "extreme," which is you definition you offered?

That's the problem with uber-subjective definitions: they can be twisted to fit political and tribal agendas.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Well of course, if they say it then it has to be true.
Does the truth really matter when someone already believes a lie? I didn't really think the truth would do any good but I wanted to try. I have worked at various polling positions for years. I am curious if any one else has.

Yes, I have worked in two counties in Texas. It has been a minute, but in both cases it was not uncommon to have people registered multiple times, but we have done a better job making that much more difficult.

It is odd that there is such a push from the left on anything that would reduce disenfranchisement and improve election integrity.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison, interesting that Texas has allowed this to be such a problem, when immigration and efforts to prevent illegals from voting is such a focus. However, since you noted that there are registration issues, does that mean that voters not registered are getting caught?

In Missouri every poll worker checks the ballot machine and signs off. Any poll worker has the freedom to check and confirm it is not connected to the internet. We check each potential voter's valid photo ID with our records. If not properly registered, there are referred to the county clerk's office.

At the end of the day the ballots and the thumb drive are separated and taken to the county courthouse in separate cars by representatives of both parties.

The county then calls in the results to the state, with follow up online and paper records forwarded expeditiously.

Expense is minimal so why a model Republican state has such an issue is interesting. I voted in Texas for 20 years and worked the polls some and rarely was aware of any voter eligibility issues. (McLennan County mostly). Seems like things have changed and the administration at the state level is failing to make necessary changes.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree to some extent on all three points. Having leaders in influential positions throw gas on the integrity of our voting process continues to accelerate the issue. The more we doubt its legitimacy less we have a democratic republic. The less we believe voting makes a difference. The more politically alienated we become the less we care we make a difference.

Your thoughts?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

I agree to some extent on all three points. Having leaders in influential positions throw gas on the integrity of our voting process continues to accelerate the issue. The more we doubt its legitimacy less we have a democratic republic. The less we believe voting makes a difference. The more politically alienated we become the less we care we make a difference.

Your thoughts?

I agree. And, we are getting it from all sides

  • Left with the allowing anyone to vote
  • Right (MAGA especially) that any election they don't win is stolen
  • Foreign entities that try and influence elections like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea (We also do our fair share of election fixing, so I guess turnabout is fair play)
  • SuperPacs dumping upsean levels of money (This is a huge problem)
  • Finally, we have the legal vote tampering with the Gerrymandering and restrictions jockeying
Some of these aren't the traditional "integrity" issues, but all impact election integrity.

I would like to see a "salary" cap on the money you can dump into an election and standardized voting districts without caring who lives there.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.

I don't think so, but you keep on with your delusional thinking.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.

I don't think, so, but instead I falsely accuse you keep on with your of delusional thinking, so I can avoid my own accountability.

Clarified
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.

I don't think, so, but instead I falsely accuse you keep on with your of delusional thinking, so I can avoid my own accountability.

Clarified

No, just evidence of your personality disorder.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.

I don't think, so, but instead I falsely accuse you keep on with your of delusional thinking, so I can avoid my own accountability.

Clarified

No, just evidence of your my own personality disorder.

You keep projecting, I just correct.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.

I don't think, so, but instead I falsely accuse you keep on with your of delusional thinking, so I can avoid my own accountability.

Clarified

No, just evidence of your my own personality disorder.

You keep projecting, I just correct.

^^^ Like I said …
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.

I don't think, so, but instead I falsely accuse you keep on with your of delusional thinking, so I can avoid my own accountability.

Clarified

No, just evidence of your my own personality disorder.

You keep projecting, I just correct.

^^^ Like I said …

You keep projecting again, I just correct. Again.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Harrison, interesting that Texas has allowed this to be such a problem, when immigration and efforts to prevent illegals from voting is such a focus. However, since you noted that there are registration issues, does that mean that voters not registered are getting caught?

In Missouri every poll worker checks the ballot machine and signs off. Any poll worker has the freedom to check and confirm it is not connected to the internet. We check each potential voter's valid photo ID with our records. If not properly registered, there are referred to the county clerk's office.

At the end of the day the ballots and the thumb drive are separated and taken to the county courthouse in separate cars by representatives of both parties.

The county then calls in the results to the state, with follow up online and paper records forwarded expeditiously.

Expense is minimal so why a model Republican state has such an issue is interesting. I voted in Texas for 20 years and worked the polls some and rarely was aware of any voter eligibility issues. (McLennan County mostly). Seems like things have changed and the administration at the state level is failing to make necessary changes.

I thought it typed clearly that it was a few moons ago - so I cannot speak to what 2026 is like.

What I saw was many duplicate registrations: people would be registered as David Smith, David A. Smith, D.A. Smith, D. Alan Smith, etc. At the time we did not have great ways to track whether that person voted four times, but it was possible.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

I agree to some extent on all three points. Having leaders in influential positions throw gas on the integrity of our voting process continues to accelerate the issue. The more we doubt its legitimacy less we have a democratic republic. The less we believe voting makes a difference. The more politically alienated we become the less we care we make a difference.

Your thoughts?

Do you think all the Democrats that claimed - and many still believe - that the 2016 election was stolen are radical and extreme? What are your thoughts? Do you trust media outlets like 60 Minutes that claimed the 2016 election was stolen by Russian hackers?

I could be wrong, but your outrage seems to be selective. Maybe I am wrong, but I have not seen a ton of outrage around all the disproven claims of Russian hackers and stolen elections, even launched an impeachment, all histrionics by radical leftists from 2016-20.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.