Re: Question for John McAdams

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 11:12:07 PM UTC-6, Glenn V. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 1:01:59 AM UTC+1, x wrote: 
> > On 3/1/2021 6:54 PM, Glenn V. wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:01:42 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > >> On 25 Feb 2021 03:03:03 -0000, BT George <[email protected]> 
> > >> wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 5:27:28 AM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote: 
> > >>>> On 24 Feb 2021 10:54:02 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:44:40 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: 
> > >>>>>> Correct. And frankly we *do* have free and fair elections. There are no 
> > >>>>>> high barriers to casting a vote here. What's at issue is that one side 
> > >>>>>> wants you to have virtually *no* standards to ensure you are a 
> > >>>>>> legitimate US citizen with a right to vote. Here is a reality. A lot of 
> > >>>>>> illegal aliens, and persons who are, or have been incarcerated lean 
> > >>>>>> Democratic. The Democratic Party won't come out and say it, but they 
> > >>>>>> would like very much to make it easier for such persons to cast a vote 
> > >>>>>> that will be counted, even if is not a *legal* vote under the law. Since 
> > >>>>>> in US history, they were the Party that originally most opposed the 
> > >>>>>> abolition of Slavery, as well as the movement towards full civil rights, 
> > >>>>>> I cannot help but note that their modern day stance as would be 
> > >>>>>> "champion" of such things is somewhat ironic indeed. 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> As to whether they are any more likely to outright cheat, I will 
> > >>>>>> withhold judgement. But the modern aggressive Progressive movement that 
> > >>>>>> is taking over today's Democratic Party (vs. yesterday's more 
> > >>>>>> traditional Liberalism that had room for *all* views) has shown a 
> > >>>>>> tremendous amount of unscrupulousness towards views they don't agree 
> > >>>>>> with. (See Cancel Culture or the attempt to remove John from his 
> > >>>>>> Professorship a few years back.) Thus given little or no legal 
> > >>>>>> requirements to cast a *legal* vote, I would feel very unsafe with their 
> > >>>>>> "ends justifies the means" 'my way or the highway" "anyone who disagrees 
> > >>>>>> with me is evil and must be stopped" mentality. 
> > >>>>>>>> Thus Democrats have opposed voter ID rules, in spite of the fact that 
> > >>>>>>>> you have to have an ID to drive, get a library card, open a bank 
> > >>>>>>>> account and even collect welfare! 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> BTG don't mix up things here. I -defended John publicly at various sites 
> > >>>>> on the Internet, back then. Period. 
> > >>>> Thanks for doing that. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Note that I don't read BT George's post as attacking you personally. 
> > >>>> He is pointing out a huge amount of intolerance on the left, and 
> > >>>> saying fears of cheating are at least somewhat justified. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> It's clear that at least some Democrat officials, in the 2020 
> > >>>> election, simply ignored their state laws, and changed procedures IN 
> > >>>> CONTRADICTION TO STATE LAWS, in order to advantage Biden. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Which is not to say that the votes they counted were not real votes. 
> > >>>>> I'll get back about the rest..It's 
> > >>>>> disappointing that you don't understand or know about this. John should 
> > >>>>> know. 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> I don't think BT George is accusing you of attacking me personally. 
> > >>>> You aren't. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> We are just having a little debate. :-) 
> > >>>> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> AGREED! I have tremendous respect for Glenn, even when we occasionally 
> > >>> don't agree, as I know you do too. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> 
> > >> I was delighted to have Glenn's essay about Judyth Baker on my site. 
> > >> 
> > >> He leveraged his residence in Sweden to do some excellent research 
> > >> that otherwise would not have been done. 
> > >> 
> > >> https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viklund.htm 
> > >> 
> > >> .John 
> > >> ----------------------- 
> > >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > > 
> > > Right, since you asked about Sweden, I'll give you a few basic facts. 
> > > 
> > > - Voter turnout, 2018 general election, 87,2 % of all eligible voters 
> > > which is 82% of the entire voting age population. (as comparison, US 
> > > numbers are 86,8 / 55,7 (2016). 
> > > 
> > > - General elections always takes place on a Sunday, where most are off 
> > > work. 
> > In the US, the date for national elections is the first 
> > Tuesday in November, as set in the Constitution. However, 
> > most jurisdictions allow early voting for a couple of 
> > weeks before this day. 
> > > - Eligible voters are automatically registered voters. 
> > The only time I've ever had to register is when I've 
> > changed address. 
> > > - You can vote by mail when you are abroad, from anywhere in the world. 
> > Ditto in the US. 
> > > - You can vote at any of a huge number of polling stations, such as 
> > > schools, libraries, post offices, municipal and other facilities, 
> > > starting three weeks prior to election day. 
> > Pretty much the same here. I used to have to go to the 
> > particular polling place assigned for our precinct. That 
> > changed a couple of election cycles ago. Now, I can go 
> > to any polling place in the county and vote. 
> > > - A national ID card, a drivers license or a passport is required as 
> > > identification. 
> > This practice is considered to be "voter suppression" 
> > among the bien-pensant. It's increasingly become a common 
> > requirement, at least in states with a Republican majority 
> > in the statehouse, moves which were roundly denounced as a 
> > veritable return to Jim Crow. 
> > 
> > It didn't used to be this way. Not all that long ago, all 
> > you needed to show was a voter registration card. This was 
> > an index card sized piece of heavy paper that had your name 
> > and address, but nothing more. 
> > 
> > By way of comparison, in Mexico, you have to have a dedicated 
> > voter ID in order to cast a ballot. This ID not only has your 
> > photo and address, it also carries your fingerprint. 
> > > - You cannot vote by mail, no need for this since those who, for any 
> > > reason, can't vote in person are still able to vote. 
> > So here's one difference. You can vote by mail in the US. 
> > The question is, are there proper safeguards against 
> > fraud? 
> > > - You can vote by using a courier (of your choice) who will bring the vote 
> > > to election officials at polling stations. 
> > > 
> > > - If you have no courier, officially appointed local election couriers (2) 
> > > will visit your home, get your vote and deliver it to election officials 
> > > in your district. 
> > What constitutes a "courier" in Sweden? Could that be anyone? Or is there 
> > some legal requirements and limitations as to who can take on that role? 
> > 
> > In this US, this is generally where all the ballot 
> > harvesting happens. 
> > > - Of course, you can go to a nearby official polling station before or on 
> > > election day to vote, in person. 
> > Same is true here. 
> > > And needless to say, the procedures, controls and paper work regulating 
> > > all those options are strictly implemented and followed up in detail in 
> > > order to avoid voting fraud. 
> > Those exist in the US as well. Or so they say. How it works 
> > out in reality is a little bit different. 
> > > Time for you and the others now to answer the questions I raised above. 
> > There are no terrible "high barriers" here. That's just a bunch of 
> > whargarrbl spewed by certain groups who've benefitted from the loose 
> > standards of the status quo. And stand to lose if those standards are 
> > tightened. 
> > 
> > The various proposed changes to voting laws that create such a fuss don't 
> > seem to be liable to create any onerous new barriers. If anything, these 
> > would seem to bring US election laws more in line with international 
> > norms. 
> > 
> > BTW, this came across my news feed last week: 
> > 
> > https://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/four-people-including-justice-of 
> > the-peace-arrested-on-150-counts-of-voter-fraud
> “What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, 
> the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice 
> Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing. 
> 
> “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to 
> Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's 
> restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote 
> they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, 
> it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing 
> an election 51 to 50.” 
> 
> Well, Brock. This is a quote from the SC hearings today. Unlike what I see 
> here, a republican lawyer speaking it out loud. "A competitive 
> disadvantage". "A zero-sum game". There we have it. 
> 
> So, am I surprised that no one here see any problems with bills introduced 
> to restrict voting in the US? Not one bit, frankly. All republicans, all 
> on home turf when supporting this. All white men, too? 
> 
> So let's see. Once again, Georgia. Five million votes. Three recounts. 
> Resulting in appr. -900 votes for Biden, in total. Completely in line with 
> everything acceptable as an alection with no significant problems of voter 
> fraud. No irregularities. As confirmed by republican election officials in 
> this state. 
> 
> Still, bill after bill is now being introduced in Georgia with one single 
> purpose; to reduce voter participation. Has nothing to do with voter fraud 
> whatsoever. John want me “learn about identity politics”. 
> But does he also recognize that those bills in Georgia are, by design, 
> targeting minorities; black voters? 
> 
> Stacey Abrams ten year long efforts – among other things - to get 
> people of minorities to vote, paid off. And now the republicans in Georgia 
> have realized they are at risk of losing more elections moving forward to 
> the midterms, if nothing is done. And yes Brock, I do very much understand 
> how significant what happened in Georgia really is. This was a true earth 
> quake in American politics, losing to the state to Biden and losing the 
> two senate seats. And that's exactly why it's a very good example to 
> understand what the republicans are now up to. Hundreds and hundreds of 
> bills all over the US with one thing in common, to restrict voting. And 
> this, my friend, is a fact. 
> 
> So Brock. I brought Georgia up early in this thread. No comments, so far. 
> Which speaks volumes. I understand that most here would much more like to 
> discuss elections in Sweden than defending the indefensible, of which 
> these v oter restriction proposals in Georgia are a good example, a very 
> good example. 
> 
> And of course, the lawyer in the Supreme Court today, should we perhaps 
> assume he's out of business with the republicans, shortly?

Glenn.  Why are you addressing this to me at all?  Don't you direct this 
to John?  The last comments I had on this particular thread was February 
24th and doesn't bring up Georgia in particular, but the Democrats desire 
to have virtually *no* standards to cast a "legal" vote.

If you want to address something to me, please go back and direct it 
towards anything *I* actually said.  ...One thing you can be sure. If *I* 
don't comment on something I either deemed it irrelevant or didn't notice 
it Because I "Sashay(tm)" to anyone approximately *zero* times.  Because 
if I am clearly wrong I try to always admit it.