idw.community

3 2

Republican lawmakers were forced to admit they have not seen any evidence of widespread election fraud during a Saturday showdown in the Texas State House over restrictive “election integrity” measures being taken up in a special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott.

[msn.com]

TyKC 7 July 11
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

Texas didn't have the fraud Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penns. did.
They are proving it in Georgia and Arizona right now
Male voting day a national holiday, and no ID no vote. Pretty simple stuff.
People are not stupid. Blacks don't need to be told how to get an ID.
Anyone who is not for this solution is for cheating by either side. Voting is more important than buying alcohol, and you can't do that without ID

I'm not aware of any wide spread fraud in the states that you mention. Fraud is a crime and people need to be charged, grand juries convened, investigations by law enforcement conducted, trials held and convictions made. I'm not aware of any investigations beyond what normally occurs every voting cycle. It's not true that Texas didn't have fraud. There are 44 active cases presently there. However, only 1 of the 44 cases involves the 2020 election. Voter fraud is exceedingly rare.

About 60% of eligible voters are registered to vote. Of those, about 60% actually do vote. If you count the primaries, the numbers are even worse, less than 15%. If, indeed, voting is more important than buying alcohol, it might be worthwhile to inform the voters of that since they apparently do not agree with you. There is little incentive to commit voter fraud except by those who have a vested interest in the outcome, i.e., the politicians. We should be far more worried about the politicians than the voters. The real crisis here is voter apathy, not voter fraud. What is the old saying? You get the government you deserve. Well as our country spirals into the depths of dictatorship, I guess our apathy has given us the government we deserve.

@TyKC I agree with you that the people of this country just don't give a shit anymore, but when they openly change election laws illegally. That is fraud. Judges and governors and secretaries of states cannot change election laws. Only the state legislators can.
That's how they cheated and won.
The majority are a lost cause in this country. Whether Republican or democrat. Most don't care about Liberty. Only if there side wins.
We have all watched both sides, condemn the other for doing the same thing they are doing. It's sickening really, and in a lot of aspects you are right. It is why we are heading to full blown tyeanny

2

MSN Relies on the DAILY BEAST as a “SOURCE?”
Then THAT becomes an Item used here in IDW?

Somehow, the inclusion of Beto O’Rourke makes even LESS Credible (if that’s possible)

The article refers to a GOP Politician who is “unaware” of anything “Rising” to the level of fraud which is more indicative of a lack of “awareness” than a knowledge of its lack of occurrence.

A kid too young to vote who was working in a “phonebank” recounts a situation where a voter claims that if they had not received a bulk mailed ballot he would have not been able to vote?

The contention is that THIS will restrict voters from voting … (note the descriptive adjectives inserted by the Beat “reporter”.

“ What Abbott is looking to achieve, among other things, is a ban on 24-hour and drive-through voting, implementing strict new voter ID requirements for mail-in ballots, a prohibition on absentee ballot applications from being sent out proactively, and an expansion of the authority granted to “partisan” poll watchers.”

Aside from the injected adjectives, I really see nothing outside of Common Sense Measures there and would note that these are simply “the worst” of the measures the Beast came up with.
I’d also note that they didn’t … anywhere … recount the Actual Bill or Contents … in this lengthy “article”.

I hardly think so. Your support for free and open discussion is overwhelming. Evidently, I am supposed to adopt the attitude that it is more important to know who said something rather than what was said. If opinions or observations come from sources like the "The Daily Beast," whoever they are, or from the mouth of Beto O’Rourke, I'm supposed to de facto censor anything they have to say and see to it they do not have a place on the IDW regardless of content. I hardly think that such a course of action is in keeping with the spirit of the IDW.

The politicians you refer to were speaking on the public record. If, indeed, they were simply unaware of obvious voting irregularities, they surely don't deserve to hold the public offices they do. They went on public record to say that they were unaware of any voting irregularities in the methods of voting that their bills are attempting to restrict. Why would you do that in a country that ranks dead last in democratic voter participation? It makes no sense. If anything we should be far more concerned about the motives of the politicians than the voters.

The kid you refer to was invited by the legislature to testify. His testimony would also be on the public record. I hardly think the "beat reporter" would purposely misconstrue his words on something that could so easily be checked.

@TyKC
I’ve no objection to the material you post.
My response wasn’t intended as a personal commentary against you.
Nor was there any intent to limit your “Free and Open Discussion”.

I have to admit finding a piece from MSN using the Daily Beast as its primary “source” to be a bit … surprising … even that it existed.
Its almost as weird as finding a Washington Post article using the Babylon Bee as its primary “source”.

As far as I know, you might have posted it as a an example of farcical satire.
I was more interested in mocking the article.

I’d point out that I went so far as to read the article even after noting the Creator and Source for the article.

MSN and the Daily Beast are both well known for the type of “reporting” (or lack thereof) they do … their deliberate cant, twisting or editing via omission of their “reports”.

I simply pointed out some of the places and points where their “reporting” was most likely suspiciously lacking in accuracy.

@TyKC
Here … look … another “credible” source that looks just like that “unbiased” list found on the Beast … personally I love the injection of “Partisan” Poll Watchers …
I’m SURE that’s exactly what the Bill Claims!!!

@Bay0Wulf “Partisan” Poll Watchers is an accurate description. In most states either campaigns or the local DNC or RNC are allowed to send in poll watchers who can observer the counting of ballots. They are just exactly what it sounds like - “Partisan” Poll Watchers. I see nothing nefarious or usual about this. This is the way it's been done for years.

@TyKC
Actually … you kind of need to check your “facts” on this.
In “Closed Primaries” where republicans are voting on republican candidates and democrats are voting on democrat candidates you obviously have “partisan” (of THAT Party) watchers.

In “Open Voting” where voters are voting on Candidates of ALL Parties, Poll Watchers from ALL Parties are Supposed to be Present … not “Permitted” but actually Present.
You might twist that to be “Partisan” … which is to say a Democrat or Republican Poll Watcher is Individually “Partisan” for Their Party but hardly indicates that the Poll Watchers Generally are “Partisan” as a Group.

Its obviously is simply a “play on words” as presented by that list from the Beast and etc. to reflect the Concept in the MOST Negative Light Possible (ie. A LIE by Omission). Its stated the way it is to make the “New Rule” SEEM “ nefarious or (un)usual”.

I’m relatively sure the “New Rule” is to PREVENT one Group of “Partisan” Poll Watchers from DISINCLUDING another Group of “Partisan” Poll Watchers (ie the way in the 2020 Election, Democrat “Watchers” went to Great Lengths to Exclude Republican “Watchers” … yes, there’s LOTS of Video Evidence of this occurring)

Here’s another video for you … it talks about Georgia but its quite similar to Texas in many aspects …

@Bay0Wulf Yes, that's what I meant. There are members of both parties present as observers at general elections. They are normally referred to as "partisan poll watchers," because each party sends their group of poll watchers individually. A group of partisan poll watchers cannot exclude another group of partisan poll watchers from observing. Those decisions are made by the election officials who run the vote counting process, not by poll watchers. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should provide it. The election officials are bound to run the election in accordance with the laws of the state, which includes how and what poll watchers are allow to do or not to do. However, each precinct generally has wide altitude in what these poll watchers can do or say during their observations. There are restrictions designed to ensure they do not interfere with the vote counting or needlessly hold it up. Here's what the partisan poll watcher part of the bill actually does say and it has nothing to do with poll watchers excluding other poll watchers:

Both bills include language to strengthen the autonomy of partisan poll watchers at polling places by granting them “free movement” within a polling place, except for being present at a voting station when a voter is filling out their ballot. Both chambers also want to make it a criminal offense to obstruct their view or distance the watcher “in a manner that would make observation not reasonably effective.”

Not sure why the bills include this. Poll watchers are already protected from these things under current law.

[texastribune.org]

Moreover, in the case of the primaries you would have republicans poll watchers watching republicans and Dems watchers watching Dems. In what sense would that be partisan? That makes no sense.

@TyKC
Uhm … no it wasnt the poll watchers doing the excluding … it was the Officials which I believe is/was already illegal … I think this is simply reinstating or stiffening up the rule/law by making sure its illegal on the State level … thereby removing how things are conducted at the precinct level.
It was definitely done at many locations during the 2020 election so Texas is simply addressing it more closely .. it might not have even been done in Texas but they’re simply putting Laws into place to ensure that it won’t.

As to the question of “Partisan” watchers at Primaries … its kind of redundant to call the watchers “Partisan’ although they are (all for one Party) … I think this new Law is to eliminate tge question as to whether watchers of BOTH Parties are Allowed/Required … just in case one group attempts to accuse the other group of being “Partisan”
I’m obviously guessing here but most carefully constructed Laws include verbiage that might seem highly simplistic but stated in such a way as NO Person of ANY Intellect Level can either fail to understand OR attempt to restate in some other manner in an effort to misconstrue the Intent or Fact of such a Law.

1

Why do Democrats hate preventing fraud?

Why do Republicans love promoting fraud?

Since the DNC totally endorsed communist policies. Commie crappola depends upon lies, and the stupidly of those who will not recognize it or fight it. Those that refuse to accept the lies are among the >100 million murdered by commie regimes everywhere it has been implemented. There is no acceptance or compromise with that ideology, in any of its forms or whatever wrapper is now has. Like I said, only stupid people do not condemn it.

Dems don't hate preventing fraud, when it occurs. It just doesn't occur often. It's asinine to hold up election results for one or even a few cases of unproven voter fraud.

@bobbo666 Which policies endorsed by the DNC are communist policies? Enlighten us.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:244868
IDW.community does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.