Re: Question for John McAdams

On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 7:20:01 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 8:04:28 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 3:38:00 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:00:31 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 5:16:02 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 11:04:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > > > > > On 23 Feb 2021 18:03:33 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 1:19:35 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > > > > > >> On 21 Feb 2021 23:48:43 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >> >John, we've discussed the subject of voter suppression before. I would 
> > > > > > > >> >think you know about these last GOP proposals in Georgia. 
> > > > > > > >> > 
> > > > > > > >> >So, would you agree that prohibit voting on Sundays and make absentee 
> > > > > > > >> >ballots more restricted is, in fact, measures to reduce voter 
> > > > > > > >> >participation in Georgia? Would you agree that the targets of those 
> > > > > > > >> >measures are pretty clear? 
> > > > > > > >> > 
> > > > > > > >> >Do you think that these proposals, if decided, benefits US democracy? 
> > > > > > > >> > 
> > > > > > > >> You really should understand identity politics, since you certainly 
> > > > > > > >> have plenty in Scandinavia. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> Or perhaps it's so pervasive you don't even recognize it. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> People on the left see a racist behind every bush and under every bed. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> Republicans, of course, see all resistance to ballot security as 
> > > > > > > >> evidence that the Democrats want to cheat. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> Here is an (oddly) fairly unbiased article on Georgia: 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/02/sweeping-georgia-election-law-changes-proposed-state-gop-senate-bills-voter-id-absentee-monitors/4360423001/ 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> There is, of course, a trade-off between ballot security and making 
> > > > > > > >> voting easy. If you make it super easy to vote, you make it 
> > > > > > > >> super-easy to cheat. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >What's this? I'm not talking about "super easy" or not. I'm talking about 
> > > > > > > >free and fair elections where everyone who want to vote is, in fact, able 
> > > > > > > >to vote. You either have this ambition or you don't. You know, just like 
> > > > > > > >"Scandinavia" and the rest of Western Europe have organized their 
> > > > > > > >ambitions of inclusion of **all voters** in their democracies. 
> > > > > > > Are people in Europe required to show ID when voting? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Are people allowed to mail in ballots? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Is "ballot harvesting" allowed? That is, can somebody go into a 
> > > > > > > nursing home, get all the residents to sign ballots for the favorite 
> > > > > > > candidates of the harvesters, and then submit those? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >If Europe can do this, the US certainly can. If the will is there, the 
> > > > > > > >resources are there and the ambition to have a democracy of inclusion is 
> > > > > > > >there, in the first place. You either do this and have this ambition or 
> > > > > > > >you don't. Not a relative thing, this. And certainly no rocket science at 
> > > > > > > >all. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What you call "democracy of inclusion," if taken to the extreme, 
> > > > > > > allows fraud. There needs to be reasonable safeguards. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> 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! 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > No response? 
> > > > > > > >> Note that in the article some election officials complained about 
> > > > > > > >> being overwhelmed by mail-in an drop-off absentee ballots. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >So why wasn't the proper resources to deal with these highly expected high 
> > > > > > > >numbers of absentee ballots allocated to the districts? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The COVID thing his a few months before the election, and you can't 
> > > > > > > instantly ramp up. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> Keep in mind that elections should not merely *be* honest, but they 
> > > > > > > >> should *appear* honest. There were plenty of irregularities in 2020 
> > > > > > > >> that the Trump people could point to. I don't think they add up to 
> > > > > > > >> any sort of "stolen" election, but irregularities undermine confidence 
> > > > > > > >> in the system. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >You don't think?? What evidence are you aware of that election officials 
> > > > > > > >around the US are not? Election officials from both camps and courts with 
> > > > > > > >judges appointed by both R's and D's? I'd be interested in hearing about 
> > > > > > > >the evidence for this? You're an expert in distinguishing evidence from 
> > > > > > > >fantasies and bs, as I recall. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You are just arguing that the election was not stolen. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm pointing out that irregularities allow people to believe that the 
> > > > > > > election was stolen. Or even just doubt the legitimacy of the system. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Again: elections should not merely *be* fair and honest, they should 
> > > > > > > *appear* to be fair and honest. 
> > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > >> So maybe you should be just a bit skeptical of politically correct 
> > > > > > > >> identity politics, eh? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >Yes, sure. Once you, perhaps, consider the fact that every single district 
> > > > > > > >in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Georgia and Arizona where the GOP 
> > > > > > > >wanted to throw out millions of votes are districts overwhelmingly 
> > > > > > > >dominated by non-white voters. Huh? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Those districts had Democrat election officials who would be prone to 
> > > > > > > cheat to help the Democrats. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As a court has just found in Michigan... 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2021/03/16/mi-court-michigan-secretary-of-states-absentee-ballot-order-broke-law-vindicating-trump-claim/ 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It's obvious you a knee deep in identity politics. I'm sure that 
> > > > > > > makes you fell great about yourself, but it's a way of avoiding real 
> > > > > > > issues. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > .John 
> > > > > > > ----------------------- 
> > > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > > > > There is no doubt election laws were broken in a number of key states. In 
> > > > > Pennsylvania the state legislature determined that mail in ballots had to 
> > > > > arrive by election day in order to be counted. The courts overruled that 
> > > > > by allowing those ballots to be collected for up to three days after the 
> > > > > election. The Constitution gives state legislatures the sole power to 
> > > > > determine how the electors are chosen. The courts illegally usurped that 
> > > > > power. 
> > > > The Pennsylvania SC allowed this, yes. And the US SC wouldn't allow the 
> > > > case to be considered. 
> > > > 
> > > SCOTUS split 4-4 whether to hear the case. Roberts joined with the three 
> > > liberals. SCOTUS never ruled on merits of the case. 
> > > > This is the single one of all the sixty-five cases that went to the 
> > > > courts. The rest were without merits. And this one had nothing to do with 
> > > > voter fraud, per se. The approximately ten thousand votes that were 
> > > > removed would not have changed the outcome. 
> > > > > There is also no doubt the disregarding of state laws worked to the 
> > > > > advantage of the Democrats. Donald Trump won the same day voting. It was 
> > > > > the mail in balloting that tipped the scales in five key states. 
> > > > Indeed. An why? Because Trump had told everyone that for months that mail 
> > > > in balloting "was bad". As he knew the pandemic would make people use this 
> > > > option in large numbers, which the Democrats supported all along. And he 
> > > > was right. People did. Trumps theatrics on election eve about this was 
> > > > comical. "What happened? As far as I'm concerned we did win the election". 
> > > > Fully aware, of course that mail in votes would come in later - and be bad 
> > > > for him. 
> > > Democrats knew the mail in vote would go heavily for them. I wonder how 
> > > they knew that. 
> > Because there were plenty of reporting long before election day about huge 
> > numbers of mail in ballots, as the D's had told them to. Nothing strange 
> > at all about this. Trump on the other hand had for months told his base to 
> > vote in person, as you know they listened to him in large numbers. That's 
> > why. But if you have proof of something other than this, resembling voter 
> > fraud, irregularities or anything else fishy - be my guest to bring the 
> > evidence. Sayso's doesn't count. 
> > > > > Relaxing of state laws regarding these ballots resulted in more of them being 
> > > > > counted than should have been allowed under the law. 
> > > > 
> > > > > We will never know if adherence to state laws would have flipped enough of these five states to 
> > > > > change the outcome of the election but there can be no doubt the rules 
> > > > > were bent to help the Democrats. 
> > > > Where did those bent rules occur? To only benefit Democrats? 
> > > Yes. 
> > Prove this. Biased unproven opinions doesn't make voter fraud. Again where 
> > - and what's your evidence?
> The state court in Michigan has ruled their secretary of state violated 
> the law by unilaterally changing absentee voter rules. 
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-michigan-sec-state-broke-law-absentee-ballot 
> 
> I've already pointed out the violation of law in Pennsylvania. 
> 
> Who does the Constitution empower to determine how a state's electors 
> should be chosen? 
> 
> Did the Pennsylvania legislature decide that mail in ballots must be 
> received by election day to count. 
> 
> Did the Pennsylvania courts overrule that decision by the legislature? 
> 
> Does the Constitution grant that power to courts?
> > > > And why did 
> > > > state election officials from both parties certify the results in those 
> > > > states? 
> > > Election officials jobs are to count the votes. They were simply following 
> > > the order of the courts. 
> > No. They do a lot more than count votes. Check it up.

On this particular one, I have no (I think) disagreement with you. 
Moreover, my point was simply that this doesn't qualify as "voter fraud" 
as those votes were perfectly fine, but apparently there was an issue 
about the lawfulness of the decision.