Re: Marjorie Taylor Greene "likes" the Mossad-did-it Theory

On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 10:12:20 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 8:14:21 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: 
> > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 8:33:16 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:01:51 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 10:45:01 PM UTC-6, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 9:18:19 PM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote: 
> > > > > > Election fraud found...oops, it was by operatives of the Republican Party 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/four-people-including-justice-of-the-peace-arrested-on-150-counts-of-voter-fraud/ar-BB1dZivx 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But the electoral system's safeguards appear to work 
> > > > > The problem with that argument is we don't know how many people didn't get 
> > > > > caught. 
> > > > 
> > > > So, you think a reasonable way to proceed forward is to create voting 
> > > > "protections" to solve a problem that has not been identified? 
> > > > 
> > > My house has never been burglarized but that's no reason to leave my doors 
> > > unlocked. I've never had a house fire but I carry homeowner's insurance. 
> > > I've never faced a deadly attack but I carry a gun in case I do. The idea 
> > > is to create safeguards before something bad happens, not after. 
> > These new restrictive laws may stop a few cases of isolated fraud (which 
> > tend to always occur, anyway), but they dramatically reduce the number of 
> > people who will be able to vote - mostly tailoring the restrictions to 
> > target communities of low-income minorities. 
> >
> These laws don't prevent anyone from voting. They are reasonable measures 
> to ensure that the people who are voting are entitled to do so. If people 
> don't vote because they don't want to do the few simple things that are 
> necessary, that's on them. They have no one to blame but themselves.
> > In Arizona, they are actually trying to make a law that the legislators 
> > can simply overrule the results of the election and select their own set 
> > of electors.
> The Constitution already empowers the state legislatures to do just that. 
> It is not a constitutional requirement that a popular vote even be 
> conducted. In the earliest days of the republic, it often wasn't. In 2000, 
> the Florida legislature was prepared to award the state's electors to Bush 
> if the courts hadn't resolved the matter in time for the Electoral College 
> voting. They were up against a hard deadline and Florida could have been 
> left out of the voting in that event.
> > 
> > You say your house has never been burglarized; yet, you still lock the 
> > doors. These new laws are somewhat Draconian, however. It's not simply 
> > "locking the doors." It would be a better comparison if you said, "My 
> > house has never been burglarized, but I still want the police to drive by 
> > my house every hour on the hour to make sure everything is OK. My house 
> > has never been on fire, but I still want the fire department to have a 
> > truck in my neighborhood, 24/7." The protection does more widespread harm 
> > than good because it depletes resources putting many OTHER houses in 
> > danger. Sure, it's great for YOUR house but it would not serve the greater 
> > good. 
> >
> What is Draconian about the laws being considered or that have already 
> been passed?

  They`re afraid if the laws are changed to require ID they won`t be able 
to steal elections any more.