It's official, the election was stolen

[Cato]

People systematically being denied a vote is as rare as those that actually commit voter fraud.

So you're saying the investigator in the article is lying?

What are you talking about? I made no such claim. What I have said is that no evidence has been presented that anyone was 'actually' denied their right to vote. If anyone had been we would be discussing the lawsuits being filed and not just the potential of disenfranchisement.

[Joods]

I can vouch for this. Somewhat.

Before 2012, whenever I went to go vote, I was able to be in and out of there in maybe 30 minutes. That isn't too bad, right?

Thing is, it was after 2008 that I started to hear whispers about voter disenfranchisement and rumors that attempts were being made to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. It was also when the Republicans started raising a stink over voter fraud and trying to pass voter ID laws. Well, in 2012, I voted early and still had to stand in line for almost an hour. This year, when I voted early, I waited in line for about 3 hours. There are fewer places to vote, which results in lines being longer at the place we DO have. And I can certainly see how this could be prohibitively time consuming for people who have busier lives than me. I mean, I had to eat half my day off doing this, but if you work multiple jobs or if you have children to deal with, you're out of luck. And this is in a state that's already solidly in the red territory. I have to wonder, if this kinds of time disenfranchisement was part of the plan, how much worse do you think it was in battleground states? How long do you think the lines were in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida?

Um...I live in PA and was in and out in ten minutes.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't deny the existence of the mechanisms reported; however, this is very different than someone actually being deprived of their vote. This has not been demonstrated let alone in numbers that would have 'stolen' the election. People systematically being denied a vote is as rare as those that actually commit voter fraud.

And it would have been amazingly fine tuned to have not targeted double the # of Black/Latino voters that voted for Romney that were going to vote for Trump, but not their next door neighbors that were going to vote for Hillary.

I guess we need a new term:

nano-gerrymandering

@Vor
It -was- amazingly fine tuned, to favor republicans, though some of those targeted for disenfranchisement were almost certainly red voters- collateral damage.  It;s not as if they didn't have alot of data to back up their gamble that whatever fraction of an area went red, it would be miniscule compared to the blue, and on that basis nixed it. The geographical spread of voters isn't a dotted landscape of red house blue house red house blue house. If you live in a blue neighborhood and your nextdoor neighbor is voting red, he's a statistically insignificant aberration, the same is true in reverse.

@Cato
That's a hell of a dodge to use in context.  Sure, some of those targeted in carolina, for example, may have used the twelve weeks notice they had -if they were made aware- to comply with new voting regulations.  This doesn;t really help in the case of crosscheck or the shutting down of polling places. Many of the voter suppression laws (let's call them what they are) were so transparently bad that various bodies forced them to be changed before election time, so that can throw off the numbers as well, worth mentioning. Some, if they were made aware, maybe. What portion of those targeted for disenfranchisement would you be comfortable with having actually -been- disenfranchised? Gimme a percentage and I can redo the math to see whether or not it would have swung the vote another way. Smart money says yes, lol.

[Whateverist]

Tell me again the details of the conspiracy where Trump got Hillary to set up her own email server and how Trump got Huma to marry Anthony Weiner . . .

Don't think anyone claimed there was a conspiracy which did all those things but it certainly appears that voter disenfranchisement is an important strategy of the republican party.  They just call it voter fraud prevention because they choose  their words strategically too.  That Hillary has baggage is beside the point.

[Drich]

Read this and weep America, because you all are just allowing fascism to grow unchecked in your midst and destroy your freedoms. First they stole your right to vote, next they'll steal your right to speak.

http://www.gregpalast.com/ethnic-votes-s...more-12932

[vorlon13]

I think the topic would be more accurate if the word 'stolen' was replaced with the word 'lost'.


 



  

[account_inactive]

I love it, atheist who doesn't believe in God due to the paucity of evidence immediately accepts election conspiracy without evidence.

If you read the article you'd see the evidence. But you'd rather live in fantasy land than believe your beloved far right party leaders are a bunch of traitors.

"Far-right"

Don't make me fucking laugh.

[Whateverist]

I think the topic would be more accurate if the word 'stolen' was replaced with the word 'lost'.


 

---

  

---

So much equivocation and so false. Has this become a new obsession for you?

[vorlon13]

those who don't yada yada yada the past blah blah blah it

[Cato]

Rhythm,
You're still missing the point. I have never justified bullshit laws or that they can't result in disenfranchisement. Your question regarding what percentage of disenfranchisement would I be comfortable with is simply bullshit and I think you know it.

Again, where is the evidence that people were denied their right to vote? Further, if people are going to claim this was the reason Clinton lost; i.e., the election was stolen, you're going to need a shitload of examples. I won't hold my breathe. You of course are free to continue to ignore the point that I have quite clearly stated.