...that electioneering in the pulpit was a no-no. That pastors and others could discuss issues and principles as they related to people's voting options, but that actually directly endorsing, or soliciting votes for specific candidates would put churches afoul of the laws regarding tax exempt entities. Back in my non profit days, we were taught to stay far away from politics (at least candidates) to preserve our tax exempt status.
Apparently I was wrong.
https://news.yahoo.com/souls-polls-virginia-churches-air-192800111.html
53 comments:
Over most of my lifetime, it's not been uncommon to see Democrats speak at churches. This is not a problem for me per se, but it is a one-way street. Should anyone else, particularly a conservative or member of the GOP set foot in a church, that person had better not be doing anything more than praying or all heck would break loose from the hypocritical left.
Of course this is just the most recent of many examples of DFL politicians abusing the rules regarding politics in non profit organizations. It happens regularly (Hillary adopting here stereotypical "black" vocal inflection and spouting racial stereotypes was the most amusing) on the left. Strangely enough, many of the same folx who'll ignore these examples, will screech and howl if a GOP candidate so much as sets foot in a church.
Just one more example of hypocrisy on the left, as you note.
RE hypocrisy of the left. You all do know, don't you, the republicans do this kind of thing too?
For my part, it's clearly wrong for me lay wrong for any churches to endorse either Democrat or Republican candidates. It is clearly good to talk about political topics.
It is clearly good to speak out against how conservatives are trying to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote.
It would also be good to speak out against the liberals if they were doing that. but they're not.
It is good to speak out against the lies being passed off on the right about threats to our elections, when the data shows there are no serious threats To our elections. It would also be wrong for liberals to do that, but they're not.
In short, I think - and I'm consistent on this - That it's not right for churches or nonprofits to endorse partisan political candidates. It is good to talk about topics though.
To the degree that this happens in some churches where we're appearing to endorse a candidate might happen, it shouldn't.
But any church that doesn't fight for policies that protect God's good Earth, the poor, immigrants , women, et cetera, that church is worthless.
I guess the fact that both Art and I mentioned GOP candidates getting bashed for the appearance of campaigning in churches just slipped by.
How about you simply acknowledge the present reality that the Biden/Harris administration is currently engaged in direct campaigning for a specific candidate in 300 churches. Why not engage with the reality that Jen Psaki has specifically campaigned for a specific candidate multiple times in her official capacity as press secretary. Instead of trotting out, "well, the other guys do..." and trying to pretend that it's just the "appearance" and something that "might happen". Your choosing to ignore reality isn't a good look.
To be clear, the hypocrisy isn't in folks trying to evade the tax laws pertaining to campaigning in churches, it's the fact that folx like you are silent when those on the left brazenly do so, while loudly protesting when those on the right do so.
I've written elsewhere about the topic of churches and pastors engaging in politics, and the enforcement of that law consistently.
It is clearly good to speak out against how conservatives are trying to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote.
Gee, I'd like to see evidence of this. Oh, you mean like requiring an ID to vote? So the poor and minorities are too stupid or too ignorant to get an ID? Wow, talk about an uppity and racist statement!
So, my saying clearly that endorsing political partisan candidates is wrong is not speaking out directly against it?? Again, not sure if you understand how words work.
Dan,
Yes, your mealy mouthed, non specific, bland, general disapproval is not speaking directly to the current plan by the Biben/Harris administration to violate the prohibition against electioneering in churches, and the Hatch Act violations committed by Psaki. Your attempt to hide the trees in a forest of vague, unsubstantiated, semi allegations, would be amusing if if wasn't so pathetic.
Craig...
" Your attempt to hide the trees in a forest of vague, unsubstantiated, semi allegations, would be amusing if if wasn't so pathetic..."
You truly don't understand the irony of this comment, do you? You truly don't recognize that this is 90% of what you do in your interactions with me?
Funny. Weird.
1. I am opposed to people using the pulpit to promote politicians. Period. I always am. If a Democrat candidate benefits OR if a GOP or other candidate benefits. I'm always opposed.
2. I don't know the details of the Psaki or current Harris allegations, but if they violate the Hatch Act, they should be held accountable. I just don't tend to comment on matters where I don't have all the details.
3. In this Newsweek article, it mentions the concern being raised by conservatives about Harris/Psaki, and it mentions Trump ally McEnany complaining about it. BUT, the article goes on to say...
"The Office of the Special Counsel, the government body that enforces the Hatch Act, determined that numerous members of the Trump administration violated the rule, according to advocacy group Citizens for Ethics. Many more alleged instances of these violations came during the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, including ones by Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and Andrew Guiliani. The group reported that all of these alleged instances were, as of November 2020, under review as potential violations.
McEnany herself was also accused of violating the Hatch Act when she spoke in support of Trump's re-election and urged an investigation into the "Joe Biden-Hunter Biden situation" while on the White House grounds in her then-official capacity as press secretary."
4. Just to be clear: IF the churches in question OR if Psaki violated the act, they should be held accountable AND SO SHOULD these Trump supporters. I don't know how else to say it. I'm consistently opposed to these sorts of campaign violations.
5. And, even more so, I'm concerned about the attacks on elections by Trump and his minions... I'm concerned that the GOP is actively trying to create policies based upon lies about "election fraud" that WILL result in poor and minority people being pushed away from or discouraged from voting. I condemn it all.
Will you?
Will you condemn Marshal for his defense of Trump's evil lies about him having "won the election" and that the "election was stolen from him..."? Will you condemn the GOP in conservative states from creating laws based upon these damned lies?
Your concern about election problems are pretty shallow if you can't condemn the more serious attacks on our election by today's Trump GOP.
I trust Dan will log the following into whatever log he has to keep track of lies he tells which have been pointed out:
1. The first is the least of them, and could very well just be ignorance.
"For my part, it's clearly wrong for me lay wrong for any churches to endorse either Democrat or Republican candidates."
It's not "wrong" for any church to speak against any candidate. It's unjustly illegal, but not wrong in and of itself. Breaking the law is wrong, but this law is wrong so there's that. If a candidate is clearly one who advocates that which is sinful according to church doctrine, it is just, proper and the duty of the pastor to speak out against such a candidate.
2. "It is clearly good to speak out against how conservatives are trying to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote."
If this were true, it would be, but it's a leftist lie put forth to protect their ability to game the system. Conservative attempts to improve election integrity is falsely described by the lying left as an attempt to make it harder to vote. The purpose is not to make it harder to vote for anyone, but to make it harder for leftists to cheat and disenfranchise all voters in the process. Dan lies again.
3. "It is good to speak out against the lies being passed off on the right about threats to our elections, when the data shows there are no serious threats To our elections."
This is also a lie, as indeed there have been mounds of evidence proving to be so. Dan relies on the "nyuh uh" response to these facts by the very people involved in much of the cheating, and pretends that ends the discussion. It is also a lie to suggest that a "threat" is measured by how rampant a practice is, as if one can determine with certainty one has accounted for all incidents of cheating. The Arizona audit uncovered evidence of "irregularities"...which is a term used to indicate cheating without being distracted by having to defend against the charge. That would be a separate process and merely exposing "irregularities" should be enough for good people (which means anyone other than leftists) to put in place policies to reduce the possibility that "irregularities" will persist. Thus, Dan lies again.
"You truly don't understand the irony of this comment, do you? You truly don't recognize that this is 90% of what you do in your interactions with me?"
No Irony, and not surprisingly absolutely zero proof of your astounding claim.
"Will you?"
I already have.
"Will you condemn Marshal for his defense of Trump's evil lies about him having "won the election" and that the "election was stolen from him..."?"
I've disagreed with Art often and vehemently on this subject. As to whether or not my disagreement meets your subjective standard of "condemn", I don't know or care. What's more interesting is that you simply are incapable of saying anything negative about anyone on the left without trying to tie in someone from the right. It's actually pretty damn hilarious watching you try to "condemn" Harris and Psaki enough to "save face", but still hiding behind the "Trump is evil, and he did bad things". This inability to deal with people and issues individually is either disturbing or amusing, I can't decide which.
"Will you condemn the GOP in conservative states from creating laws based upon these damned lies?"
If you can point out one specific law that was created specifically and exclusively based on "these damned lies", I'd be glad to consider it. As you rarely provide proof of your claims, I certainly wouldn't begin to accept your claim as true.
How nice to start and end with unproven claims, unsupported by evidence.
Art,
Your first point is excellent. The only reason that it's "wrong" to electioneer in churches is because the tax laws that govern non profits and their tax exempt status make it so. So, in the sense that violating the law is "wrong" then it's "wrong". I see two interesting things from this.
1. There is absolutely zero moral, or ethical "wrong" in electioneering in a church. If a church is willing to give up it's tax status, there would be nothing to stop the practice.
2. If a church was engaging in electioneering from the pulpit as a means to protest that tax laws, I suspect that Dan would support that protest. Given the tendency of those on the left to complain when faced with the consequences of their protests, I don't see any liberal churches engaging in this sort of protest. Why would they, we know that the Harris video will be shown in churches, and we know that the IRS will ignore it.
Obviously, the argument over government subsidizing churches is a much bigger discussion, and not within the scope of this post, but it's certainly worth having. Especially if you consider social media as an extension of the pulpit, and look at the political crap pastors post.
Just to make sure I've got it right, I looked up the Hatch Act on Wikipedia and aside from its restrictions against coercion and intimidation to interfere with elections, I find most of how it's used to be nothing more than a 1st Amendment violation. Now, before anyone tries to tell me how SCOTUS has ruled on it since its inception, that doesn't change a thing about it being a 1st Amendment violation, especially considering there doesn't ever seem to have been unanimous agreement on the Court. In any case, looking at that section under "2017-present", there are numerous examples of when it has been cited. Most of these are anti-Trump, but there are a couple against Dems as well. In each, I see no example that threatens the integrity of the election process.
In pointing to Harris' recent action, the issue here is whether or not what she did was prohibited action. Under this sketchy law, it seems so. Whether or not there was anything intrinsically wrong with it is another story and I'd say, no...there wasn't.
What difference does it make where one expresses one's political opinions, even on specific candidates or races? How can one's job result in one's right to free political speech being denied? From my cursory investigation, this is an Act which requires serious scrutiny and revision.
I would also like to add that once again, Dan insists the "stolen election" narrative is nothing more than lies, and does so in the weakest possible way...by citing those who are considered a part of the problem. "Election officials say..." means nothing if they're the same election officials involved in that which has been raised objections and concerns. In the case of battleground states having had their results decided after state election laws were altered without the consent of their state legislatures, what "election officials say..." is absolutely meaningless.
And as few cases alleging fraudulent practices were ever adjudicated on the merits of those allegations, to pretend the overall charge of the election being stolen being nothing but lies is itself a lie, for misrepresenting how all fraud allegations have been handled. I will also remind that of the few cases that were actually decided on the merits...about 19, I believe...all but a few were decided in Trump's favor.
Dan hasn't the integrity or character to deal with these issues objectively. All he needs is a ruling that goes his way...never mind the quality of the ruling...and that's good enough for Dan to insist his belief is reality. "What do black people say?" "What to LGBT people say?" "What did election officials say?" None of those things are relevant to what is true, and what is true rarely serves Dan and his corruption well, so he won't deal truth.
From what I've seen POTUS and VPOTUS are exempt from the Hatch Act. Psaki, is not. When she specifically endorses a candidate in her official position as spokesman, she is apparently violating the Hatch Act,
The Harris issue is a violation of the tax code by the churches and should be investigated as such.
Again, from what I've seen. There has been evidence of problems with voting in the 2020 election, but that the scope of the problems didn't affect the election. Which seems to indicate that there is a certain amount of fraud/error/etc that Dan and folks like him are willing to tolerate.
Craig... "there is a certain amount of fraud/error/etc that Dan and folks like him are willing to tolerate."
Yes. Given the reality that voter fraud and mistakes are something like 0.00002% of the vote and has zero impact on elections, we are recognizing that this is NOT not a real world problem. It's not. Election experts will tell you it's not.
And keep in mind, a lot of these actual deliberate voter fraud have come from the GOP.It's like the GOP is cheating in elections and then wanting to say look, election cheating happens, let's make it harder to vote.
In other words, they're often causing the problem, such as it is, and then making the problem worse by putting policies in place to limit voter access to "solve" a non-existent "problem" that they helped create!
The flip side of your accusation, that we're willing to tolerate 0.00002% voter fraud, is that the GOP is willing to reduce voter turnout with policies that make it harder for poor people and people of color to vote.
Of the two - willing to "tolerate" a problem that is not a real world problem and reducing voter turnout for poor people, the GOP has the more diabolical role to play it's rolled to play come a while ours is just common sense.
Do you not see that? Because poor people and people of color see it, as do their allies.
I don't know if useful idiots like you recognize this, but people like mcconnell I like mcconnell and ran Paul, they recognize that the GOP can't win if voter turnout is increased. They're only hope for continuing to win is to reduce voter turnout. To reduce democracy and representation.
Make no mistake. This outcry about the non existent problem of voter fraud is a scam that that GOP types in power know is what they have to do to win elections.
The positions that the GOP runs on are not supported by the majority of the nation. You all can't win with those policies unless you reduce voter turnout among democrats and amongst the poor and black people.
Have some integrity. Start fighting for the poor and marginalized. Stop being a useful idiot, or worse.
Do you recognize that that the data shows that GOP policy positions are largely not supported by majority of the nation? Abortion. Fossil fuels. Opposition to moving away from fossil fuels. Support for clean energy. Ending the war on drugs. Changing our prison policies. Support for a livable minimum wage. Opposition to these racist GOP voting suppression policies. On point after point, the majority of the nation is opposed to GOP positions.
Does that concern you? Are you willing to do whatever it takes to keep in power, even if the majority of the nation is against you? Do you even recognize that reality?
Another reasonable question.
If it were shown that the GOP voter suppression laws had the effect, as many disabled folks say, of reducing turnout amongst those with disabilities to take part in elections, would you support changing the rules to take away that disadvantage? Or would you say to hell with them?
How Soulless are you?
Likewise, if it was shown that the GOP voter suppression laws reduced turnout amongst black people and latinos, would you support changes so that it no longer made it difficult for black people and latinos to vote?
Here's another question for Twitter D and Twitter dumb. How do you all think voter fraud is happening exactly? How are people committing this fabled fraud in your fevered imagination?
What impact fraud and irregularities may have had on the outcome of the election can't be known if allegations are denied a proper hearing. Thus, no one can assert as if true one way or the other. I'm among the vast majority of those who believe there was indeed enough of both to have altered the outcome from its rightful conclusion, but stands willing to accept the results of a proper investigation if only one would have taken place. Given the various attempts to unseat Trump throughout his one term, and the many attendant lies perpetrated to effect that end, the belief the election was stolen is far more logical than not...lefties being lefties...as well as far more likely the truth. The major point to keep in mind is that those like myself are indeed willing to accept that was not the case if only the deranged and hateful Trump-haters had the integrity to do what's necessary to prove it. We wouldn't like to find Trump was still the losing candidate...especially for all the great harm to the nation and its people such such a resolution would mean (as we're experiencing as it is)...but unlike lefties like Dan, we don't fear the truth.
"How do you all think voter fraud is happening exactly? How are people committing this fabled fraud in your fevered imagination?"
In general.
1. Ineligible voters are voting.
2. Mail in ballots are being submitted by people other than the intended voter.
3. People are voting multiple times.
The fact that we regularly see more votes than registered voters seems strange to me.
Art,
I don't agree that the election was affected, however I do think that investigating allegations of voting irregularities is important to give people confidence that election security is taken seriously.
Dan,
Are you denying the existence of voter fraud and error?
"If it were shown that the GOP voter suppression laws had the effect, as many disabled folks say, of reducing turnout amongst those with disabilities to take part in elections, would you support changing the rules to take away that disadvantage?"
If you could show what specific laws the GOP (by itself) has passed that specifically restrict disabled voters, I'll be happy to answer your question.
"Or would you say to hell with them?"
Again, in the absence of anything specific, I can't really adequately respond to such a vague hypothetical?
"How Soulless are you?"
Not at all.
"Likewise, if it was shown that the GOP voter suppression laws reduced turnout amongst black people and latinos, would you support changes so that it no longer made it difficult for black people and latinos to vote?"
If you can show specific evidence that GOP (alone) "voter suppression" laws have specifically "reduced turnout", I'll gladly answer your question. I'm not prepared to treat your unsupported hypothetical as if it's accurate.
Of course, I'm on record elsewhere being very clear about what specific changes I'd like to see to our elections. Including things that should make voting easier for registered/legal voters.
Craig... "1. Ineligible voters are voting."
How is that happening, precisely? If Ralph Simpson shows up at a place where he's not eligible to vote, how does he vote? If he says, "My name is John Simpson," then they check and if he's not on the role, he can't vote. (There may be a provision where he could register a preliminary vote while they clarify if there was a mistake, but I don't think he can just vote without being on the role.
If he says he's someone else, how would he know what name to give? If Mr Simpson said, "uh... I'm John Smith..." what if there's no John Smith in that district? What if Mr Smith had already voted or showed up later in the day? Does Simpson have a list of people in that district who he knows aren't voting?
And in what way are they ineligible? Are there a bunch of 12 year olds showing up to vote? Their name has to be on the role to vote. Are there a bunch of non-citizens showing up to vote (good for them for wanting to!)? Their name has to be on the role to vote.
I think the data is very clear that this is an almost non-existent "problem."
Craig... "3. People are voting multiple times."
How? Once again, Ralph Simpson shows up to vote and he's already voted once. The ballot officer will note that and not allow him to vote again. How is this happening? Is Simpson going to multiple places where he's not registered to vote? Then he can't vote there because he's not registered there.
Again, the data shows this is a nearly non-existent problem.
Thanks Dan for admitting that you are prepared to tolerate a certain level of voter fraud.
Do you realize that this post isn't about your caricatures of "GOP policy"? Do you realize that no one is going to waste time answering your idiotic off topic questions?
Yet, despite all of your convincing hypotheticals structured to buttress your hunch without actually proving your hunch, all of those things happen.
I do love the fact that you think that non citizens should be commended for trying to vote when they are not eligible to vote.
https://cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/heres-what-election-fraud-deniers-dont-want-you-know
One of the foremost experts on election fraud/irregularities and defender of election integrity.
It doesn't matter if one believes there wasn't enough fraud/irregularities to steal the election from Trump. What matters is the unwillingness...especially by TDS haters...to prove it one way or another. Again, most of us who believe there was enough are willing to accept the results of an honest, transparent investigation of the charges, with the merits of allegations fully adjudicated in courts of law. People like Dan, a known Trump-hater and liar, are only concerned that Trump doesn't get a second term.
Dan sits there and asks for specifics, as if specifics aren't available and haven't been provided in past discussions. Dan continues to cite unknown "election experts" who also don't provide true data and proofs. Like his list of policies "most Americans" support, Dan and liars like him ignore facts and cite polls based on the lack of them. For example, how many of those he believes support his position on fossil fuels knows the details of how eliminating or reducing them would impact the nation? Perhaps it's just that Dan is every bit the sheep as most leftists in the country, but more vocal in presuming everything his overlords tell him is true.
And of course Dan lies about the intentions behind GOP voter integrity proposals. The only people who would be put out by them are those who are either ineligible or too lazy to get off their asses to follow the processes put in place to protect the integrity of those processes. For example, there should be no "automatic" voter registration as some propose, where getting a driver's license result in one being registered to vote. No. Go to your local village hall and register like a mature adult who actually cares about doing his civic duty.
Out of time...
Art,
I think you are right on. What I'm suggesting is that we should be willing to spend the time and effort to investigate election irregularities as we attempt to make elections as accurate as they can be made. This sense of willingness to accept some level of fraud as long as it doesn't "affect the outcome of the election" is foreign to me. The reality is that it is possible to effect the results of an election with relatively few votes in relatively few precincts. When one simply announces that there was only X% of voting irregularities nationwide, that means nothing. But a small % of irregular votes in swing districts, in swing states, can have a significant effect on a statewide or national election. Call me strange, but I'd rather have more information about the potential for election irregularities than less.
What I'm saying is that elections are as accurate as can reasonably be expected. There will be some minor cheating here and there. We know that because the GOP routinely gets caught committing voter fraud and election tampering. There's another case in the news today about a Republican from, I believe, Tennessee.
But when the numbers for election fraud are something like 0.00002%, that's a degree of cheating, often by the GOP, that we can live with. I wish the GOP were more honest and less likely to commit voter fraud, but it's still a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I'm not saying we ignore it. When someone gets caught, as this Republican did in Tennessee, they should be punished.
But we should not create laws that make it more difficult is more difficult to vote, especially for poor, marginalized and people of color when voter fraud is not a real world problem.
And when the GOP loses yet another presidential election and they turn around and falsely claim massive voter fraud and implementing laws that will make it more difficult for the poor and marginalized to vote, we see what they're doing. You two may be too naive to recognize it, but you can believe and trust that McConnell and other republicans in power know exactly what they're doing.
Here's a story documenting the ways that new voter laws make it more difficult for those with disabilities to vote.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619834/
Of course your 1 article doesn't actually demonstrate the truth of the claim you actually made, nor does it demonstrate what I asked for.
But, even if I grant you (which the article doesn't) that these laws do intentionally disenfranchise the disabled, then wouldn't the response be to look at the actual data and amend the laws or make exceptions based on actual investigations of actual data of actual effects?
"We know that because the GOP routinely gets caught committing voter fraud and election tampering."
The old "It's only the GOP" canard. My problem is that I don't care who, I simply suggest that we take appropriate steps to make elections as fraud and error free as possible. Unfortunately, if we simply accept the irregularities without investigation, we'll simply be ignorant as to what can be done to improve things.
"There's another case in the news today about a Republican from, I believe, Tennessee."
Ahhhhhhh, the vague reference to a vague story with no link gambit.
Look if your OK with some level of fraud and with ignorance about how it could be prevented, that's fine. Just own that and stop bitching at those of us who think we can do better.
1. Not "okay with some level of fraud." But I recognize that it may happen (again, we know because the GOP has been caught doing it - and I'm not saying ONLY the GOP, just that those are the stories I've seen most regularly). But as long as it's only .000002%, I'm not worried about it because it's literally not a problem in the real world.
2. When it does happen - prosecute them/hold them accountable.
3. And you're okay with some level of inconvenience, distraction towards especially the poor and marginalized.
Agreed?
Also, Tennessee State Senator (GOP) charged with violating campaign finance laws...
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/10/26/Tennessee-state-senator-charged/5931635218840/
Also, passing on stupidly false claims of "stolen elections" is one attempt to undermine elections. Will you be repudiating Trump, Marshal and the many, many other GOP types who are attacking free elections and having a real serious chance of causing harm to the election process in the US (as opposed to the miniscule problems that arise from "election fraud" in the real world)?
If you're spending all this time defending what amounts to nothing when it comes to election tampering, it would make you appear more rational if you spent even MORE time and words and anger on the Trump traitors who are actively undermining elections in the US. I mean, hell's bells, some 66% of GOP types believe this stupid dangerous lie.
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-still-think-the-2020-election-was-rigged-165934695.html
When will you start condemning those on your own side for causing ACTUAL harm to the electoral process?
GOP Voter Fraud...
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-operative-faces-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/opinion/voter-fraud-republicans.html
https://www.gq.com/story/north-carolina-ninth-district-fraud
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/22/nevada-republican-who-claimed-someone-voted-his-dead-wife-is-charged-with-voter-fraud/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics/texas-voter-fraud-award/index.html
You all are being played for fools by people who actually want to game the election system. Stop being useful idiots. If you TRULY care about election fraud, then start speaking out against the diabolical lies of Trump and his minions.
First, remove the log from your own eyes.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/09/the-big-money-behind-the-big-lie
Craig... "even if I grant you (which the article doesn't) that these laws do intentionally disenfranchise the disabled, then wouldn't the response be to look at the actual data and amend the laws or make exceptions based on actual investigations of actual data of actual effects?"
Whether it's intentional or not (and seriously, don't be naive - McConnell et al do NOT want minorities and the marginalized to turn out in large numbers because they can't win then... voter suppression has long and historically been part of the GOP playbook), these laws make it more difficult to vote. And if it's a marginally more difficult thing, no big deal to employed people with resources and more time on their hands. But for the poor, the marginalized, the disabled, it becomes just another hurdle in a long list of hurdles thrown at them.
Get on the right side of history. Listen to folks with disabilities, to black people... they'll tell you.
"A former transit employee who worked on improving accessibility on public transportation, she pulled up the city bus schedule and started mapping the distance between her home in South Austin and the Travis County elections office 9 miles away. Under Texas law, she couldn’t ask someone else to return her ballot, so Crowther, who uses a wheelchair, had to make the trip herself.
“That’s the only thing I could think of,” Crowther said. “So I hit the road.”
Double-masked and loaded up with hand sanitizer, she boarded the first bus to a community college on the east side of town, then transferred to a second bus that would get her closest to the county building. From her drop-off spot, she still had to traverse a quarter of a mile in her wheelchair, navigating an uneven intersection and a construction tunnel, at one point ducking under a guide wire to press forward."
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/05/texas-voting-disability/
The diabolical thing about these voter suppression laws (and again, don't be naive) is that they don't technically mean poor and marginalized people can't vote... they just throw up barrier after barrier knowing that those with fewer resources will eventually give up "of their own free will."
It's diabolical. Evil. Wrong.
Craig... " My problem is that I don't care who, I simply suggest that we take appropriate steps to make elections as fraud and error free as possible. Unfortunately, if we simply accept the irregularities without investigation"
1. They ARE as error free as possible. There will always be some error. .00002% is something we can live with according to the experts. According to just basic common sense.
2. They HAVE been investigated. Maybe you missed it.
VOTE FRAUD, AFTER BEING INVESTIGATED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IS NOT A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN OUR NATION.
Did you catch it that time?
https://www.voanews.com/a/2020-usa-votes_how-widespread-voter-fraud-us/6195819.html
That Atlantic article is about as deceitful as any I've read in a while. But then, it's the Atlantic.
"Whether it's intentional or not (and seriously, don't be naive - McConnell et al do NOT want minorities and the marginalized to turn out in large numbers because they can't win then... voter suppression has long and historically been part of the GOP playbook), these laws make it more difficult to vote.'
That's quite an assumption to make. Let's not bother looking at the data and just assume the worst about our enemies. Excellent plan.
"And if it's a marginally more difficult thing, no big deal to employed people with resources and more time on their hands. But for the poor, the marginalized, the disabled, it becomes just another hurdle in a long list of hurdles thrown at them."
Again, no specifics, no data, not facts, just assumptions. What I think is interesting (as someone who's been fairly involved in disability ministry and with an international disability organization) is how at odds this attitude is with many disabled people. This notion that "they" can't overcome obstacles and that they're incapable of meeting challenges is not what I hear from the folks I'm involved with. Maybe I'll ask around when I'm at the fundraiser Friday night.
"Get on the right side of history."
This notion that you are capable of unfailingly identifying with perfect accuracy the "right side of history", is simply so absurd as to cause me to ignore anything that follows.
"Listen to folks with disabilities, to black people... they'll tell you."
I do, and they don't. Your bullshit sounds so far from what I hear from both groups, that I'm forced to conclude that I'll listen to them and ignore you.
""A former transit employee who worked on improving accessibility on public transportation, she pulled up the city bus schedule and started mapping the distance between her home in South Austin and the Travis County elections office 9 miles away. Under Texas law, she couldn’t ask someone else to return her ballot, so Crowther, who uses a wheelchair, had to make the trip herself. “That’s the only thing I could think of,” Crowther said. “So I hit the road.” Double-masked and loaded up with hand sanitizer, she boarded the first bus to a community college on the east side of town, then transferred to a second bus that would get her closest to the county building. From her drop-off spot, she still had to traverse a quarter of a mile in her wheelchair, navigating an uneven intersection and a construction tunnel, at one point ducking under a guide wire to press forward." https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/05/texas-voting-disability/"
Because she has zero family, friends, and no access to taxi's/Uber/Lyft, nor the ability to visit her polling place on election day. Obviously we should take one anecdotal account, without all of the relevant information, and make public policy based on it.
"The diabolical thing about these voter suppression laws (and again, don't be naive) is that they don't technically mean poor and marginalized people can't vote... they just throw up barrier after barrier knowing that those with fewer resources will eventually give up "of their own free will." It's diabolical. Evil. Wrong."
The diabolical thing about this whole conversation is that you haven't provided one specific piece of legislation that is specifically aimed at specifically doing anything you've claimed. Just "don't be naive". I get it, you're in on the secret that no one else knows.
"3. And you're okay with some level of inconvenience, distraction towards especially the poor and marginalized. Agreed?"
In the sense that it's more "inconvienient" to leaves one's bed, go to a polling place and vote in person, sure. There's all sorts of "inconvenience" built into voting, registering, going to s specific polling place, being limited to specific hours on a specific day, all of those things are "inconvienient".
But no, I'm not "okay with some level of inconvienience" in the sense that your addled brain is suggesting. Of course, just one more instance of your trying to put words in my mouth without actually proving them to be accurate or True.
"Will you be repudiating Trump, Marshal and the many, many other GOP types who are attacking free elections and having a real serious chance of causing harm to the election process in the US (as opposed to the miniscule problems that arise from "election fraud" in the real world)?"
Not any more than I already have. Your problem is that you are acting as if I haven't written on this topic multiple times, and commented on it even more. You've chosen to ignore what I've actually said, and try to argue against some straw man that you've made up. I can't help it if you choose to live in a fantasy world, instead of reality.
BUT!! Let's take one bit of problematic data that I've mentioned and you've ignored.
As a part of the AZ forensic audit, (as well as in many other jurisdictions) we've seen documentation of votes that exceed the numbers of registered voters. My thought would be that it would be good to find out why, and to match the votes with the registered voters. Surely, you can't be opposed to only counting votes by registered voters, could you?
"If you're spending all this time defending what amounts to nothing when it comes to election tampering, it would make you appear more rational if you spent even MORE time and words and anger on the Trump traitors who are actively undermining elections in the US. I mean, hell's bells, some 66% of GOP types believe this stupid dangerous lie."
Since I'm not doing any of those things, I fail to see why you would waste your time with this entire paragraph. The notion that you get to define what I should spend my time on is insane, especially since you are so frequently silent on misbehavior on your side of the aisle. I guess it's why you spend so little time touting the achievements of the Biden administration, and so much time attacking those you categorize as "Trump supporters" and the Trump administration. It's definitely easier to attack the bogyman on the other side, rather than hold your own accountable.
Not much time now to get into details and specifics, but Dan's responses are typically lame. I don't know that he can justify accusing us of giving right-leaning cheats a pass, especially when our focus is on making cheating impossible.
Good point about the anecdote of the wheelchair-bound voter and the difficulties in doing what the rest of us do more easily. One anecdote does not justify easing the rules which then provide more opportunity for cheats. And why is this person not requesting an absentee ballot, which are available for those whose physical limitations make getting to the polls difficult? The way the story is told...and I have to admit to only skimming it...is it suggesting she must take her absentee vote to some official point so far away? What's the point of an absentee vote if the disabled have to then deliver it themselves? I'll have to review that article again.
I notice in Dan's list of links, the first three are about the same story. Dan apparently thinks he's Google. Is he trying to pad his "evidence" to make it seem more true that the GOP cheats more? Not very convincing when stooping to such tactics. But to that effort, I would wager one could easily find a Democratic example to cancel out each of those and have many more Democratic examples left over. Dems are legendary for cheating during elections. It's almost cliche.
His New Yorker article is about as clear an example of a hack hit piece as I've seen. A long article the end of which I hadn't reached as yet, it's worse than the Atlantic article...I think...tough call.
The 2020 election stands out as possibly the worst example of election irregularities in recent history, if not all of American history. The number of cases never litigated is rather staggering, while the criminal left pretends it means they were without merit. But that's part of their game. Don't hear the complaint, but tell everyone there was no evidence. Then, counting only that which has been proven, pretend it represents all cases of fraud or irregularity. It's like the illegal immigration situation...the "got-aways" are hard to count.
In the meantime, lying lefties like to attack all efforts to shore up the integrity of the voting process as intentional efforts to block voting by favored "marginalized" groups, which is only true if Dan considers cheaters as "marginalized", which he apparently does if he isn't concerned about denying them enough to do anything about it. He has it backwards. He thinks such efforts should not be done if they make things less convenient for legitimately eligible voters, while those who care about fair elections are willing to deal with less convenience to insure their votes count. And of course, he insults so many people by implying they're incapable of getting their votes cast because of the rules.
Finally, one of Dan's articles mentioned the Arizona audit and the measures implemented to examine the ballots. Yet, Gore supporters whined about "hanging chads". If a napkin was used to create a ballot, extreme measures aren't required to know it's not a legit ballot. More scrutiny is required if it is thought more effort was expended to cast a fraudulent ballot. It's not rocket science.
That Dan's responses are lame, goes without saying.
My experience with those who have disabilities is that they want, as much as possible, to live a normal life. Obviously there are some accommodations, that must be made, but most want the proverbial "hand up", not a "hand out". This notion that it's possible or desirable to remove all "inconvenience" from the lives of anyone is absurd. The notion that there might be some small number of disabled people who don't have friends/family/or other means of help, and that we should base everything on that small group seems strange. It seems to make more sense to set up voting to accommodate the majority, then to make exceptions/accommodations for that small minority who need them.
A few years back, I needed to vote absentee because was scheduled for major surgery and would have been unable to vote. I was inconvenient, but not overly burdensome. I could have easily done what I needed via public transportation, and employers are required to give employees time to do things like this. However, just because there are some legitimate reasons why people might need to vote absentee, doesn't seem like justification for this new wave of "mail in" ballots that get sent out blindly to large numbers of people whether they need them or not.
Further (although this is anecdotal I realize), I've heard multiple people talking about pressuring their older relatives (or filling in their ballots for them) to vote a certain way based on the views of the younger relatives. While this probably can't be stopped, I find it reprehensible and would suggest that anything that makes this sort of thing easier should be stopped.
Craig... "My experience with those who have disabilities is that they want, as much as possible, to live a normal life. Obviously there are some accommodations, that must be made, but most want the proverbial "hand up", not a "hand out"."
Of course, this is true. This is my experience, as well. And more importantly, I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.
Craig... "This notion that it's possible or desirable to remove all "inconvenience" from the lives of anyone is absurd."
Again, I never said otherwise.
We just don't want to see policies that make it MORE difficult than able-bodied people to vote. Crazy, huh? Too often, that is what our policies (and attitudes) do for the disabled.
A good non-disabled example would be for working poor folks who might be working two jobs or odd hours (and this would apply for some disabled folks as well). For such people, the mail-in ballots option then make voting and getting to have a voice possible. Allowing mail-in ballots doesn't take a single thing away from anyone else, but for the over-worked and under-supported, it franchises them in a manner that actually allows them to vote.
Another example is for the disabled who can't read or physically can't do the voting using their hands... allowing someone else in the voting booth with them to help them vote (or again, allowing mail in voting) franchises them.
They don't want anything more than the opportunity to have their voice.
It's like allowing blind people to take a test in some manner other than having to read questions on a piece of paper and then write down their answers... it's just enabling them to take the test in the way that makes sense. It's not coddling, it's just rational.
Is that unreasonable? If so, how?
Craig... " While this probably can't be stopped, I find it reprehensible and would suggest that anything that makes this sort of thing easier should be stopped. "
1. It IS reprehensible.
And yet...
2. If that kind of thing happens once in a million votes AND YET giving the option for mail in ballots enables 1,000 MORE people to vote, then I'm more concerned about empowering the 1,0000 voters and, if and when we catch the 1, punishing the offender rather than making it more difficult for/effectively disenfranchising the innocent 1,000 to try to prevent the one in a million cheat.
You?
Craig... "In the sense that it's more "inconvenient" to leaves one's bed, go to a polling place and vote in person, sure. There's all sorts of "inconvenience" built into voting, registering, going to s specific polling place, being limited to specific hours on a specific day, all of those things are "inconvenient". "
Agreed. But for the disabled or poor person who may have a life full of inconveniences, the reality is that one more can just be one more too much. For most of us, we have the privilege of having a car and free time and good health and relatively few obstacles. To pretend that we our five bits of "inconvenience," say, compares to the 30 or 50 sometimes costly inconveniences of the poor and disabled, that's a bit of living in an ivory tower and complaining that the cake is chocolate instead of rhubarb.
"Let them eat cake!" they said,
right before they lost their head.
Craig... "Because she has zero family, friends, and no access to taxi's/Uber/Lyft, nor the ability to visit her polling place on election day."
Also Craig, "Let them eat cake!"
Open your eyes. What you may think of as a minor inconvenience may be a stumbling block to others. And woe to the person who puts stumbling blocks down, am I right? (that is, if you want to take Jesus' teachings literally, let's take it literally...)
The reality is, it costs the privileged amongst us NOTHING to allow at least some level of mail in voting, but the lack of it will cost the least among us a great deal, maybe even their voice.
You don't see the privilege in all this, do you?
Absolutely agree with you on every point. "Convenience" is nice but no standard upon which to base election laws and policies...particularly at the expense of election integrity. "Does this convenience make it easier to cheat?" If "yes" is the answer, don't make it convenient. And really, how did convenience ever come into play, except as a means by which cheating can actually take place more easily? What kind of buffoon believes the "honor system" would be...honored...especially given all we've seen since Trump came down the escalator? It's absurd. No. We must think in terms of insuring election integrity.
As to your point about mail in voting, one of the best ways to protect integrity would be purging the voter rolls. But what do lefties say about that? They whine that it's discriminatory...because what isn't these days in their fevered imaginings?
"Agreed. But for the disabled or poor person who may have a life full of inconveniences, the reality is that one more can just be one more too much."
Of course, this is true of every single person on the planet, not just of the disabled or the poor. Like everyone else, the disabled and the poor might sometimes have to make decisions regarding what they prioritize and what is important to them. It happens to all of us every day.
"Also Craig, "Let them eat cake!"
Do you actually understand the concept of quoting someone? Do you understand that when you make shit up and put it in quotation marks, you are making it appear as if your made up bullshit is something I actually said. But since I didn't actually say your made up bullshit, it's just one more lie that you've told.
"What you may think of as a minor inconvenience may be a stumbling block to others."
Conversely, what you may think is a "stumbling block" might be a "minor inconvenience". The problem is that in both cases it's you making decisions about what other people think, made up and self serving decisions. For example, we could look at the data and see that
"And woe to the person who puts stumbling blocks down, am I right?"
No, you are not right. Of course, you still haven't proven that anyone is intentionally putting "stumbling blocks" in front of anyone with the express purpose of impeding their vote. But, wouldn't the converse be true as well? That anyone who knowingly lowers or removes the appropriate barriers to voting, is engaged in similarly bad behavior? Further, isn't anyone who facilitates or encourages or enables voter fraud in any form really (effectively) depriving an eligible voter of their vote?
"(that is, if you want to take Jesus' teachings literally, let's take it literally...)"
Since you don't, I'm not sure why you expect others to adhere to a standard you don't. Nor do I recall Jesus teaching on voting>
"The reality is, it costs the privileged amongst us NOTHING to allow at least some level of mail in voting, but the lack of it will cost the least among us a great deal, maybe even their voice. You don't see the privilege in all this, do you?"
You do know what misrepresentation means don't you?
"1. It IS reprehensible. And yet..."
...you then proceed to come up with excuses to allow what you deem "reprehensible".
"2. If that kind of thing happens once in a million votes"
Unproven claim.
"AND YET giving the option for mail in ballots enables 1,000 MORE people to vote, then I'm more concerned about empowering the 1,0000 voters and, if and when we catch the 1, punishing the offender rather than making it more difficult for/effectively disenfranchising the innocent 1,000 to try to prevent the one in a million cheat. You?"
I'm all for making reasonable accommodations to allow as many people as possible (who are legally eligible) to vote in a way that is as secure and protected as possible and where the votes are accurately counted.
Craig... ""1. It IS reprehensible. And yet..."
...you then proceed to come up with excuses to allow what you deem "reprehensible".
? Murder, too, is reprehensible. And the cure for it, to your line of thinking, would be to lock up everyone in individual cages to prevent it from possibly happening. But that would be an even greater evil, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't it?
We do what we can within reason to prevent abuses - whether it be murder or election tampering - BUT, we don't penalize the whole society because some people will behave badly. That would be an insane suggestion, wouldn't it?
I'm not at all down with the notion that we must change our election procedures to "allow" more people to vote who were never "disallowed" in the first place. Of those who voted by mail because mail-in voting was put in place, how many of them were unable to vote prior? If they were unable, what was the reason and does that reason legitimately entitle them to the standard absentee ballot? So of that 1000 more Dan thinks will be "empowered" by mail-in, how many were just too lazy to get their asses to the polling place like a responsible adult does regardless of other personal issues? It's a cheap ploy by Dems and their supporters, and I'm frankly unconcerned about those who demand mail-in so they don't have to leave their house. Their laziness provides opportunity for election fraud.
"Murder, too, is reprehensible. And the cure for it, to your line of thinking, would be to lock up everyone in individual cages to prevent it from possibly happening."
No, the above is a false statement, that has absolutely zero basis is fact.
"But that would be an even greater evil, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?"
Because these questions seem to be premised on the above false statement, with no basis in reality, there seems to be no reason to answer them and fuel your obsessing with making shit up.
"We do what we can within reason to prevent abuses - whether it be murder or election tampering - BUT, we don't penalize the whole society because some people will behave badly. That would be an insane suggestion, wouldn't it?"
Again, since this seems to be based in your insane notion of making shit up and attributing it to me, I see no reason to encourage your insanity.
Marshal, I work with poor and disabled folks everyday and 9 out of 10 would mop the floor with your lazy, racist ass.
Piece of shit talking shit about what you're ignorant of.
Once again we see Dan embracing Grace, and demonstrating the love of Jesus to his enemies.
Art,
I think were on similar paths. I believe that virtually everything of value (such as voting) should involve some degree of effort or inconvenience. I don't think that voting should be easy for the sole reason of allowing people to vote with less effort because it's easier. Having said that, I do agree that there should be mechanisms to accommodate those who legitimately are unable to vote in the traditional manner. I've mentioned many of those things before. I personally don't think that making accommodations for those who need them is incompatible with verifying the eligibility of voters. I share your concern that this trend of blindly mailing out vast numbers of ballots to those who haven't specifically requested them is an invitation to problems.
One thing that gives me pause in all of this is the notion that those who are voting by mail should be given a pass on the notion of having their ballot submitted on or before election day.
Post a Comment