shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:25:21 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2022 2:54 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:21:37 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
>>> to god live voter who physically marks an "X".
>>>
>>> As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
>>> from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
>>> behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
>>> on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
>>> anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
>>> told they had already voted!
>>
>> Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
>>
>
> Yes, ballot harvesting can mean they simply gather everyone's ballot
> from some spot and then drop them off at a drop box. It doesn't
> necessarily entail fraudulently filling out the ballots. Still it's
> frowned upon because of that possibility of tampering with the
> ballots.
>

Here the USPS simply dumps them in the desert. 20,000 at a time. I’m not
sure if you consider that ballot harvesting or not. They’ve never said if
those are all filled out or if it includes the ones they redirect so we
never get them in the first place.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 11/29/2022 11:15 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> In article <tm4v62$292hb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Southern Dixiecrats and Republicans had long opposed busing in their region,
>>> where the federal government had mandated it most heavily. But as the
>>> practice spread, whites in wealthy suburbs like those in Delaware began
>>> pushing back. Some had moved to the suburbs to send their kids to what they
>>> considered a "good school," which usually meant mostly white, and opposed
>>> their kids being bused elsewhere to make schools more equal.
>>>
>>> "Southern politicians who had been pushing against desegregation in the 1950s
>>> realized, 'Oh, OK, now that it's hit the doorstep of the northeasterners;
>>> they don't like it any more than we do,'" Ralph W. Eubanks, a southern
>>> studies professor at the University of Mississippi, told the Jackson Free
>>> Press in April. "And these political alliances began to form. So that's why
>>> you had someone like Joe Biden making alliances with Strom Thurmond, James
>>> Eastland and John Stennis."
>>
>>
>> This is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually going on. The
>> tipping point came when kids began being bussed from the suburbs back
>> into the cities, adding hours to their school day. You didn't have to
>> be racist to not want your kids to be the subject of a social
>> experiment that required them to ride a bus for up to three hours per
>> day when there was a perfectly good public school within walking
>> distance of their homes.
>>
>
> And that you were paying higher taxes for. Not to mention the white kids
> being bussed into the bad neighborhoods were in physical danger.

Yes, it was a travesty, to be balanced against the one it aimed to fix.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:52:09 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:25:21 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2022 2:54 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:21:37 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously?
>>>>
>>>> Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
>>>> to god live voter who physically marks an "X".
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
>>>> from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
>>>> behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
>>>> on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
>>>> anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
>>>> told they had already voted!
>>>
>>> Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, ballot harvesting can mean they simply gather everyone's ballot
>> from some spot and then drop them off at a drop box. It doesn't
>> necessarily entail fraudulently filling out the ballots. Still it's
>> frowned upon because of that possibility of tampering with the
>> ballots.
>>
>
>Here the USPS simply dumps them in the desert. 20,000 at a time. I’m not
>sure if you consider that ballot harvesting or not. They’ve never said if
>those are all filled out or if it includes the ones they redirect so we
>never get them in the first place.

I wouldn't call that ballot harvesting. More like ballot dumping. An
apparently uniquely Arizonian practice. Given your past history I'm
going to guess that these ballots are dumped before they get to the
voter so as to give the poor overworked postal worker less mail to
deliver.

On 11/29/2022 8:50 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/29/2022 10:34 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 11/29/2022 6:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:21:37 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/28/2022 5:31 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> On 11/28/22 8:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:24:14 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <cvWgL.43469$c6W2.39935@fx41.iad>,
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <hs78ohhu9bdjb6oth0kf77m9kggjd1i4nl@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>     shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:22:49 -0800, The Horny Goat
>>>>>>>>>> <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of
>>>>>>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (And
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that
>>>>>>>>>>>> she's
>>>>>>>>>>>> maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection
>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>> have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and
>>>>>>>>>>> what she
>>>>>>>>>>> calls voter suppression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes
>>>>>>>>>> made in
>>>>>>>>>> our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>>>>>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect
>>>>>>>>> Democrats?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting
>>>>>>> laws to
>>>>>>> legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
>>>>>>> everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for
>>>>>>> voter
>>>>>>> fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change
>>>>>>> was to
>>>>>>> help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
>>>>>>> from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on
>>>>>>> CNN
>>>>>>> and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic
>>>>>>> process, and
>>>>>>> the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this
>>>>>>> marks the
>>>>>>> beginning of the fall of the republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
>>>>>> ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it shitpuppet.
>>>>
>>>> How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite frankly this practice, when done by political parties, should
>>> also be illegal.
>>>
>> But no one's standing over the bussed voters to ensure that they vote
>> for one party over another. They're simply getting them there.
>
> So, a voter could lie about which way he'll vote, just to get the free
> ride?  Hey, look, we've invented a new kind of "voter fraud"!...

You can mark whatever candidate you want once you get in the voting booth.

MDuPree@theworld.com wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>> MDuPree@theworld.com wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>>> Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
>>>> language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.
>>>
>>> Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
>>> right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at
>>> a figure on the left was too much for you.
>>
>> Hardly - I've read lots of material by "leftists" who make good points
>> and present their views clearly with good use of the language.
>
>You're making a different point now, and avoiding the mistake you made.
>'Reductive' is a word. Abrams was right in her usage of it. You were
>wrong when you claimed it wasn't a word.
>
>
>> I assure you she's NOT somebody from the other end of the continent
>> who I've vaguely heard of and am shooting from the hip about. I don't
>> pretend to know everything about everybody in US politics but she is
>> one I >have< listened to at some length and think she manages to out
>> looney Trump.
>
>She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start.

For starters, Trump didn't, either. It would behoove you to stick
with the facts and respond in a more timely manner.

--
Let's go Brandon!

nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>>>She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>>
>>No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>>calls voter suppression.
>
>Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
>our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>Republicans.

TROLL-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

In article <cvWgL.43469$c6W2.39935@fx41.iad>, pwallace@moviepig.com wrote:
> On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> MDuPree@theworld.com (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>>>>> She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>>>>
>>>> No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>>>> calls voter suppression.
>>>
>>> Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
>>> our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>>> Republicans.
>>
>> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
>> not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
>
> Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.

Strawman noted.
Nonresponse noted.
Literary legerdemain noted.

Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
Let's go Brandon!

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>> shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
>> do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
>> mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
>> drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
>> illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
>> the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
>> applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
>> mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.
>>
>> That was creepy as hell.
>
>One year while I was living at mom's I got a message from the republican
>party that said I hadn't voted in so long that my registration had lapsed
>so they went ahead and re-registered me. As Republican.
>
>That was creepy as hell.

I was confronted by a union thug waiting for me at my home after work who
wanted me to vote for Crooked Hillary. He became quite belicose when I told
him I was doing no such thing.

That was creepy as hell and made me angry as hell.

--
Let's go Brandon!

lcraver@home.ca wrote:
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
>>arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
>>group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
>>ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
>>opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
>>her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
>>comment on what California is doing.
>
>Reporters have since the invention of the microphone put them in
>politicians' faces looking for comments and if she chose to answer "I
>do my best for Georgians and as a result don't have time for keeping
>up on what's going on in California" you could hardly fault her though
>"yeah sure...." might be a reasonable response.
>
>But MANY of the "harvesters" have left unattended collection boxes
>open during their hours and in those circumstances ballot stuffing is
>very easy to pull off.

Ev er watch 2000 MULES? It documents Dems literally stuffing those collection
boxes.

>I trust USPS - but I certainly wouldn't trust an unattended box on the
>sidewalk.

There was a YouTube video (taken from a news segment?) of a man who mailed
out a bunch of fake ballots to himself via USPS. If memory serves, most went
missing. Of course, this is not news, since they kn ew this in Europe and
after the 2001 election, a commssion said there should be NO mail-in
ballots.

--
Let's go Brandon!

nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:25:21 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2022 2:54 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

>>>>>> How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
>>>>> to god live voter who physically marks an "X".
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
>>>>> from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
>>>>> behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
>>>>> on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
>>>>> anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
>>>>> told they had already voted!
>>>>
>>>> Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
>>>
>>> Yes, ballot harvesting can mean they simply gather everyone's ballot
>>> from some spot and then drop them off at a drop box. It doesn't
>>> necessarily entail fraudulently filling out the ballots. Still it's
>>> frowned upon because of that possibility of tampering with the
>>> ballots.
>>
>>Here the USPS simply dumps them in the desert. 20,000 at a time. I’m not
>>sure if you consider that ballot harvesting or not. They’ve never said if
>>those are all filled out or if it includes the ones they redirect so we
>>never get them in the first place.
>
>I wouldn't call that ballot harvesting. More like ballot dumping. An
>apparently uniquely Arizonian practice.

No, discarding ballots was not limited to AZ.

--
Let's go Brandon!

NoBody@nowhere.com wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 03:19:57 -0600, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

>>"Ballot harvest" is as much a pile of horseshit as "Hunter's laptop."
>
>You mean the laptop that CBS finally admits to being an issue? Glad
>you finally made it to the party. Better late than never I guess.

Not as late as DuPress, who should be responding in about a fortnight.

--
Let's go Brandon!

NoBody@nowhere.com wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>> Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
>>>> our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>>>> Republicans.
>>>
>>> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
>>> not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
>>
>>Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
>
> You didn't answer the question.

That means Moviepig lost the debate.

--
Let's go Brandon!

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:24:14 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
>>>>legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
>>>>everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
>>>>fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
>>>>help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
>>>>from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
>>>>and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
>>>>the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
>>>>beginning of the fall of the republic.

>>>If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
>>>arrested and put in jail. Otherwise there's nothing that prevents any
>>>group (Republican, Democrats or any one else) from doing the legal
>>>ballot harvest to insure everyone that wants to vote gets their
>>>opportunity. Also given that Abrams has been focused on Georgia and
>>>her election in Georgia I don't know why you would expect her to
>>>comment on what California is doing.

>>shawn, my state has an abyssmal state legislature but our election laws
>>do not allow what California allows. A voter may give his completed
>>mail-in ballot to a trusted relative or friend who will then mail it or
>>drop it at a secure drop box set up by election officials. It would be
>>illegal for a political partisan unknown to the voter to offer to accept
>>the ballot. The re-election campaign of my governor clearly knew who had
>>applied for mail-in ballots. I started getting text messages and
>>mailings that were quite specific to the sending in the ballot.

>>That was creepy as hell.

>One year while I was living at mom's I got a message from the republican
>party that said I hadn't voted in so long that my registration had lapsed
>so they went ahead and re-registered me. As Republican.

>That was creepy as hell.

You just caught the Republican Party committing a felony violation of
your state's election code. You should have filed a complaint.

>In high school our social studies teacher gave us extra credit for
>registering to vote. Of course we had to do it with him and he was a
>Democratic registrar so you had to register Democrat.

>That was creepy as hell.

Another felony. Inducements are illegal.

>And should've gotten him fired at the very least.

Yes

As far as I know, my state has never had party registration.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:40:12 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>. . .

>>In high school our social studies teacher gave us extra credit for
>>registering to vote. Of course we had to do it with him and he was a
>>Democratic registrar so you had to register Democrat.

>>That was creepy as hell.

>Giving you extra credit for registering to vote was okay.

No, it's an inducement and therefore illegal, a criminal Election Code
violation.

>Did he actually force you to register as a Democrat (as in no credit if
>you didn't register as a Democrat) or was it more of the 'go ahead and
>choose Democrat' recommendation since most kids wouldn't have a strong
>preference for any party. In any case it shouldn't be a real problem
>since you can change your party affiliation at any time.

It's a real problem because it was being done by a person in authority.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:25:21 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 11/29/2022 2:54 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:21:37 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>>How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?

>>>Seriously?

>>>Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
>>>to god live voter who physically marks an "X".

>>>As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
>>>from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
>>>behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
>>>on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
>>>anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
>>>told they had already voted!

>>Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.

>Yes, ballot harvesting can mean they simply gather everyone's ballot
>from some spot and then drop them off at a drop box. It doesn't
>necessarily entail fraudulently filling out the ballots. Still it's
>frowned upon because of that possibility of tampering with the
>ballots.

Wrong, shawn

It is the duty of a uniformed letter carrier (or an ununiformed worker
in processing and distribution) not to tamper with the mail under
penalty of federal criminal law.

If the voter gives the marked ballot to a trusted friend or relative to
mail or drop off at an official ballot receiving location without
altering the ballot, that's not in violation of any state's election
law. But if a person unknown to or untrusted by the voter receives the
ballot, that's ballot harvesting. Generally, that's illegal under state
law.

If the mail-in ballot received by a ballot harvester never gets mailed
in but it gets tampered with or never gets voted, then federal law of
the mails hasn't been violated. It's still a violation under state law.

The reason ballot harvesting is illegal is there's no way to prove the
absense of tampering. It's one of those crimes, like receiving stolen
merchandise, in which the prosecution doesn't have to prove conspiracy
nor participation in setting up the crime, just criminal possession.

And that's as it should be.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 11/29/2022 6:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:21:37 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/2022 5:31 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/22 8:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:24:14 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <cvWgL.43469$c6W2.39935@fx41.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <hs78ohhu9bdjb6oth0kf77m9kggjd1i4nl@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>    shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:22:49 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of
>>>>>>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>>>>>> That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
>>>>>>>>>>> maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection
>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>> have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>>>>>>>>>> calls voter suppression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes
>>>>>>>>> made in
>>>>>>>>> our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>>>>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws to
>>>>>> legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
>>>>>> everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for voter
>>>>>> fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change was to
>>>>>> help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of outrage
>>>>>> from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking heads on CNN
>>>>>> and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the democratic process, and
>>>>>> the think-pieces in the New York Times speculating that this marks the
>>>>>> beginning of the fall of the republic.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is anything that should be clearly illegal everywhere it's
>>>>> ballot harvesting.  Interestingly enough Dems seem all for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove it shitpuppet.
>>>
>>> How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>>>
>>
>> Quite frankly this practice, when done by political parties, should
>> also be illegal.
>>
>But no one's standing over the bussed voters to ensure that they vote
>for one party over another. They're simply getting them there.

Wow. That's the same idiotic rhetorical argument from BOTH moviePig
AND NoBody.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:12:56 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:22:49 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC), MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply:

>>>>>She hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of government.
>>>>>That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to start. (And even
>>>>>if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no sign that she's
>>>>>maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot insurrection could
>>>>>have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)

>>>>No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
>>>>calls voter suppression.

>>>Which was perfectly reasonable for her to do since the changes made in
>>>our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done solely to help elect
>>>Republicans.

>>Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but it's
>>not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect Democrats?

>Obviously it's not though as I told Mickey I find the idea that the
>states hold their own rules for a federal election (which includes how
>its administered) laughable and vaguely obscene.

>Part of the problem with US politics in the Trump era is that
>extremism on both sides have come to the fore and centrism of all
>sorts is withering.

You've been observing American history for a long time. You of all
people know better than that. The current extremes in rhetoric
absolutely did not begin with Trump. Trump himself was a natural at
using rhetorical extremes to build an enormous base of supporters and
take over a weakened Republican party, but this was all very much in
evidence under Obama. In legislatures and Congress, moderates in both
parties were noticeably losing primaries and moderate incumbents were
losing in close general elections even under George W. Bush. G.W. Bush
himself found some oddly extreme rhetoric to use to get re-elected in
2004 in his "fighting the war in Iraq means we're fighting terrorists in
their home countries and keeping terrorism away from U.S. shores"
rhetoric that appealed to female voters who were mothers of young
children that contributed to his ability to win a swing state like Ohio.

Editorial cartoons since they were first drawn use extreme political
rhetoric in caricature and farce. Old campaign speeches from centuries
ago were full of extreme rhetoric. There's nothing new here.

After winning re-election for governor of Wisconsin on November 8, Tony
Evers declared "Boring wins," a rare instance of lack of use of extreme
rhetoric.

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2022-11-26 9:13 p.m., Micky DuPree wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>>On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 05:05:05 +0000 (UTC), Micky DuPree wrote:

>>>>From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the
>>>>interpretation (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect
>>>>that shawn meant "statute" when he said "amendment."

>>>>It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>>>>strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>>>>century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.

>>>As I understand the court decision it put responsibility for the issue
>>>on the STATES. Not sure I personally agree with that but if that's the
>>>ruling then Biden and friends are spending a lot of time in waters
>>>they ought not to be swimming in.

>>As I understand it, the SCOTUS decision was that in the absence of a
>>federal statute protecting abortion, the determination of abortion
>>rights or abortion prohibitions devolved to the states. But if Congress
>>did pass such a law, then that would supersede state laws (until, of
>>course, there was a challenge by red states that would proceed to the
>>SCOTUS again).

>I'm pretty confident that the court would rule that the federal
>government has no authority to tell the states that they can't ban
>abortion. What would be their constitutional authority to do it?

I still say that Congress enacting a statute prohibiting one state from
restricting travel for medical care to another state would be
constitutional. Also, given that the Hyde Amendment is constitutional,
then repealing the Hyde Amendment would also be constitutional and
abortion care could be charged to Medicaid.

Otherwise, I agree with you and I agree that Micky DuPree got it
wrong. I don't see how abortion rights could be enacted in statutes as
a subject-matter power of Congress.

Nevertheless, there remains the question as to whether abortion rights
are protected in the federal constitution without a federal statute that
isn't necessarily constitutional anyway.

Looking at the historical status of abortion (which did exist in the
late 18th century) at
the time the Ninth amendment was written and not looking at a long list
of judicial decisions under common law that put extreme restrictions on
the liberties of women. Also, the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects liberty. What was the historical status of abortion in
the mid 19th century?

And the biggest argument about liberty should have asked the question,
Does the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment make statutory law
codifying religious principles to restrict a medical decision a person
might make for himself unconstitutional?

There have always been excellent legal arguments that both Griswold
v. Connecticut (penumbra of rights) and Roe v. Wade made up
constitutional law out of whole cloth, but that's not to say that an
originalist argument in support of abortion rights would have been
impossible.

Alito got Dobbs very very wrong.

A Friend wrote:
>Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

The article Ubi plagarized:

Joe Biden's Praise for Segregationists Spans Decades
By Ashton Pittman
Jackson Free Press
Friday, June 28, 2019 12:26 p.m. CDT
https://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/jun/28/joe-bidens-praise-segregationists-spans-decades/

>>Southern Dixiecrats and Republicans had long opposed busing in their region,
>>where the federal government had mandated it most heavily. But as the
>>practice spread, whites in wealthy suburbs like those in Delaware began
>>pushing back. Some had moved to the suburbs to send their kids to what they
>>considered a "good school," which usually meant mostly white, and opposed
>>their kids being bused elsewhere to make schools more equal.

>>"Southern politicians who had been pushing against desegregation
>>in the 1950s realized, 'Oh, OK, now that it's hit the doorstep
>>of the northeasterners; they don't like it any more than we do,'"
>>Ralph W. Eubanks, a southern studies professor at the University of
>>Mississippi, told the Jackson Free Press in April. "And these political
>>alliances began to form. So that's why you had someone like Joe Biden
>>making alliances with Strom Thurmond, James Eastland and John Stennis."

>This is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually going on. The
>tipping point came when kids began being bussed from the suburbs back
>into the cities, adding hours to their school day. You didn't have to
>be racist to not want your kids to be the subject of a social
>experiment that required them to ride a bus for up to three hours per
>day when there was a perfectly good public school within walking
>distance of their homes.

You're talking about the effect of bussing to desgretate suburban
Boston schools, and I agree with you. Nevertheless, certain aspects of
desegretation cases post Brown v. Board of Education were specific to
the facts of those metropolitan areas. If I recall correctly, there were
cases in the Kansas City metropolitan area (and now I'm forgetting if it
was the Missouri side or Kansas side) in which the facts demonstrated that
new school districts, not just new attendance boundaries, were drawn along
racial lines to retain segregation, which is what set up later cases for
bussing to desegregate across school district boundaries and not just
within a school district.

For that reason, the adverse effects of very long bus rides on public
school students weren't considered and very long bus riders are
certainly possible within a single school district serving a large city.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> In article <tm4v62$292hb$1@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Southern Dixiecrats and Republicans had long opposed busing in their region,
>>> where the federal government had mandated it most heavily. But as the
>>> practice spread, whites in wealthy suburbs like those in Delaware began
>>> pushing back. Some had moved to the suburbs to send their kids to what they
>>> considered a "good school," which usually meant mostly white, and opposed
>>> their kids being bused elsewhere to make schools more equal.
>>>
>>> "Southern politicians who had been pushing against desegregation in
>the 1950s
>>> realized, 'Oh, OK, now that it's hit the doorstep of the northeasterners;
>>> they don't like it any more than we do,'" Ralph W. Eubanks, a southern
>>> studies professor at the University of Mississippi, told the Jackson Free
>>> Press in April. "And these political alliances began to form. So that's why
>>> you had someone like Joe Biden making alliances with Strom Thurmond, James
>>> Eastland and John Stennis."
>>
>>
>> This is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually going on. The
>> tipping point came when kids began being bussed from the suburbs back
>> into the cities, adding hours to their school day. You didn't have to
>> be racist to not want your kids to be the subject of a social
>> experiment that required them to ride a bus for up to three hours per
>> day when there was a perfectly good public school within walking
>> distance of their homes.
>>
>
>And that you were paying higher taxes for. Not to mention the white kids
>being bussed into the bad neighborhoods were in physical danger.

Snarf

As if you aren't also paying higher taxes for shitty public schools too

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:46:43 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>
>Quite frankly this practice, when done by political parties, should
>also be illegal.

If a voter requests a ride to the polls I don't have a particular
problem with anybody (and that includes party committee rooms)
providing one. 50 years ago when my grandfather was a federal
candidate for one of the major parties, he told his door to door crew
to use their judgement to readily offer a lift to the polls if they
felt someone they were canvassing might need it. Typically these folks
would get a phone call the day before to ask when they wanted to be
picked up. There was no expectation he'd necessarily GET their vote
but obviously hoped he would. (This is the sort of thing we discussed
over dinner about 10 years later when I was reaching voting age rather
than when I was 9-11 when he ran)

In my area (present day) they also have both advanced polls (aka
"early polls") and a polling station (which in practice means a poll
worker wheeling a ballot box and a shoulder bag similar to what postal
workers wear with a book of ballot blanks and a voters list to check
off who used it.

In our electoral district that served no more than 25-35 voters but
I'm pleased they made the effort. (The local general is a 600 bed
hospital and obviously not all of those are registered voters - like
the maternity ward or pediatric unit!)

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:25:21 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 11/29/2022 2:54 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:21:37 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How does "ballot harvesting" differ in principle from busing voters?
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> Because if you bus (or otherwise transport a voter) you have anhonest
>> to god live voter who physically marks an "X".
>>
>> As opposed to somebody who goes around stealing mail ballot envelopes
>> from somebody's mail in ballots and mail them in for them "on their
>> behalf" (all voting for the thief's preferred candidate) and counting
>> on most people wondering what happened to their ballot but not doing
>> anything about it - or turning up on election day in person and being
>> told they had already voted!
>
>Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
>
No - but I definitely AM stating that 'ballot harvesting' removes most
or all of the impediments to voter fraud. Particularly when the
ballot boxes are at any point unintended or otherwise out of the
custody of the polling crews.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:10:15 -0500, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>Afaics, you're conflating 'ballot harvesting' with 'voter fraud'.
>
>Yes, ballot harvesting can mean they simply gather everyone's ballot
>from some spot and then drop them off at a drop box. It doesn't
>necessarily entail fraudulently filling out the ballots. Still it's
>frowned upon because of that possibility of tampering with the
>ballots.

Once again I >didn't< say third party dropoff equals voter fraud - but
I very much DID say that if anybody WANTS to engage in voter fraud
this practice makes things much easier.

It particularly makes it easier when you have voters with English as a
second language who come to the polls without ID of any sort. (Which
has happened umpteen times in our community particularly in electoral
districts with a high proportion of immigrants (legal).

Having served as a scrutineer I know I saw some voters turn up on
election day that I heavily wondered about but didn't challenge.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:15:36 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>And that you were paying higher taxes for. Not to mention the white kids
>being bussed into the bad neighborhoods were in physical danger.

Especially in winter months when kids have to arrive home after dark.
(Probably not a problem so much in southern states as further north)

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:50:19 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> But no one's standing over the bussed voters to ensure that they vote
>> for one party over another. They're simply getting them there.
>
>So, a voter could lie about which way he'll vote, just to get the free
>ride? Hey, look, we've invented a new kind of "voter fraud"!...

Why would they have to lie? As I said previously my grandfather was a
federal candidate 50 years ago and his people didn't expect anything
from their passengers besides "thank you for the ride". If they made
it clear how they DID vote then his staff took note of that but had
instructions NOT to ask.

A higher voter turnout was considered to be a positive social good -
hopefully we still do