Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[Hawkboys]

And, of course, his mass deportation. While I am all for beefing up border security, this mass deportation thing has chaos written all over it. I hope we never have to see how that plays out.

Immigration us where I fault both parties as complete idiots. Reds want mass deportation, which are cost prohibitive, both in terms of logistics and inflationary effects. Blues want amnesty which reinforces lawlessness and handouts.

There was a bipartisan bill 2-3 years ago co-authored by Rubio and a Dem from CO I think that would vastly simplified the citizenship and documentation proces. But it was killed by far right and far left members. This is the exact place for bipartisanship!

 

[CP87]

This recent Jon Stewart podcast featured a discussion of voting fairness and security, and explains why it would be so difficult to cheat in a US election where the administration is decentralized and has so many checks and balances (the man explaining the security part is Matt Masterson, the former Republican Chairman of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission):

Jon Stewart, Stacey Abrams & Matt Masterson on Election Integrity & Security as 2024 Election Looms

There are less than 30 days until this year’s presidential election and the integrity and security of our vote is at the forefront of Americans’ minds (and b...

www.youtube.com

Many non-partisan organizations have looked extensively into this issue and found that voter fraud is very rare, and when it does occur it is typically recognized and the vote is not counted:

How common is voter fraud?

The scale and kind of fraud alleged by election deniers is essentially impossible. What fraud there is will remain small and rare.

electioninnovation.org

The Myth of Voter Fraud

Extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare. Yet repeated, false allegations of fraud can make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to participate in elections.

www.brennancenter.org

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/re-examining-how-and-why-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare-in-the-us-ahead-of-th-idUSL1N2XP2AI/

Widespread election fraud claims by Republicans don't match the evidence

Americans still believe voter fraud is rampant despite evidence running contrary.

www.brookings.edu

The Heritage Foundation (decidedly partisan) keeps a database of election fraud cases going back decades (they cite a case from the Truman-Dewey election in 1948), and even though they argue that the database shows that our elections are NOT secure, there are a grand total of 1,561 proven instances of voter fraud in their database. Over that time period, there have been well over 3 billion votes cast in this country. Not only do the fraudulent votes account for less than 0.0001% of the votes cast, but the fraudulent votes were not counted in most instances, and they were not systematically cast in favor of one party of the other (the only voter fraud case in Iowa from the last midterms was from a Republican who voted both absentee and in-person).

With the mountains of evidence indicating that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and it is almost impossible to get away with, this messaging seems very problematic:

x.com

twitter.com

That is a straight assertion that if the election does not come out in Trump's favor, it was stolen. The fact that so many people think this is an okay thing to assert is bonkers.

Even more galling, when you read Carlson's own thoughts about Trump and his thoughts about the 2020 election from released communications in the Fox defamation suit, it becomes clear he does not even believe the lies he is spouting, he is simply angling for more power and influence.

Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages

Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against Fox News didn't go to trial, but still revealed plenty of what Fox personalities, including Tucker Carlson, had been saying about false 2020 election claims. The network’s top-rated host was let go Monday. His unexplained departure has turned a spotlight...

apnews.com

 

[PCHawk]

This recent Jon Stewart podcast featured a discussion of voting fairness and security, and explains why it would be so difficult to cheat in a US election where the administration is decentralized and has so many checks and balances (the man explaining the security part is Matt Masterson, the former Republican Chairman of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission):

Jon Stewart, Stacey Abrams & Matt Masterson on Election Integrity & Security as 2024 Election Looms

There are less than 30 days until this year’s presidential election and the integrity and security of our vote is at the forefront of Americans’ minds (and b...

www.youtube.com

Many non-partisan organizations have looked extensively into this issue and found that voter fraud is very rare, and when it does occur it is typically recognized and the vote is not counted:

How common is voter fraud?

The scale and kind of fraud alleged by election deniers is essentially impossible. What fraud there is will remain small and rare.

electioninnovation.org

The Myth of Voter Fraud

Extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare. Yet repeated, false allegations of fraud can make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to participate in elections.

www.brennancenter.org

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/re-examining-how-and-why-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare-in-the-us-ahead-of-th-idUSL1N2XP2AI/

Widespread election fraud claims by Republicans don't match the evidence

Americans still believe voter fraud is rampant despite evidence running contrary.

www.brookings.edu

The Heritage Foundation (decidedly partisan) keeps a database of election fraud cases going back decades (they cite a case from the Truman-Dewey election in 1948), and even though they argue that the database shows that our elections are NOT secure, there are a grand total of 1,561 proven instances of voter fraud in their database. Over that time period, there have been well over 3 billion votes cast in this country. Not only do the fraudulent votes account for less than 0.0001% of the votes cast, but the fraudulent votes were not counted in most instances, and they were not systematically cast in favor of one party of the other (the only voter fraud case in Iowa from the last midterms was from a Republican who voted both absentee and in-person).

With the mountains of evidence indicating that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and it is almost impossible to get away with, this messaging seems very problematic:

x.com

twitter.com

That is a straight assertion that if the election does not come out in Trump's favor, it was stolen. The fact that so many people think this is an okay thing to assert is bonkers.

Even more galling, when you read Carlson's own thoughts about Trump and his thoughts about the 2020 election from released communications in the Fox defamation suit, it becomes clear he does not even believe the lies he is spouting, he is simply angling for more power and influence.

Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages

Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against Fox News didn't go to trial, but still revealed plenty of what Fox personalities, including Tucker Carlson, had been saying about false 2020 election claims. The network’s top-rated host was let go Monday. His unexplained departure has turned a spotlight...

apnews.com

Why would Jon Stewart have Stacie Abrams on a podcast to say there's no election fraud? That's a strange pick.

 

[CP87]

Why would Jon Stewart have Stacie Abrams on a podcast to say there's no election fraud? That's a strange pick.

She was the left-leaning voice of the discussion focusing mostly on ballot access issues and Masterson was the right-leaning voice focusing on issues of security. Stewart has had voices from both sides of the political spectrum across his last few episodes to flesh out some of these policy discussions, I have learned a lot from them. Give it a listen!

For what it is worth with regards to Abrams, she refused to concede her loss in the 2018 gubernatorial election because she felt it was too hard for some constituents to votes, and these ballot access issues led to an unfair election. She did not question the actual votes cast or their tallying. If you take issue with her response to her loss, you have a point. She should have conceded, she knew the rules of the game when she entered, and if she lost by those rules it is a bad look for democracy if she does not concede.

 

[PCHawk]

She was the left-leaning voice of the discussion focusing mostly on ballot access issues and Masterson was the right-leaning voice focusing on issues of security. Stewart has had voices from both sides of the political spectrum across his last few episodes to flesh out some of these policy discussions, I have learned a lot from them. Give it a listen!

For what it is worth with regards to Abrams, she refused to concede her loss in the 2018 gubernatorial election because she felt it was too hard for some constituents to votes, and these ballot access issues led to an unfair election. She did not question the actual votes cast or their tallying. If you take issue with her response to her loss, you have a point. She should have conceded, she knew the rules of the game when she entered, and if she lost by those rules it is a bad look for democracy if she does not concede.

I couldn't disagree with Steward more on most things but he's definitely an interesting listen.

 

[PCHawk]

I'm very curious if Trump wins if he will talk about this election being the safest most secure election ever. That's what democrats did. Said Trump cheated for 4 years, then said it was impossible to cheat the next 4 years, then started saying they were worried about Trump cheating again. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[CP87]

I'm very curious if Trump wins if he will talk about this election being the safest most secure election ever. That's what democrats did. Said Trump cheated for 4 years, then said it was impossible to cheat the next 4 years, then started saying they were worried about Trump cheating again. It will be interesting to watch.

That will be interesting...my guess is gripes would be aimed more towards voter suppression efforts and foreign disinformation campaigns, and less toward election security.

One of the ironies of the GOP's long-standing efforts to make voting more difficult (or more secure, depending on your perspective) is that the demographics in which they are gaining popularity have generally been low-propensity voting blocks. There is a world in which they might actually end up harming their own efforts, though Trump has been historically good in mobilizing some of these low-propensity blocks...he is also historically good at mobilizing support against him.

An interesting factoid I heard recently: there are 91 million registered voters who have cast a vote against Trump (at least once) over the last 2 presidential elections, and there are 83 million registered voters who have cast a vote for Trump (at least once). So, which side is gaining, which side is losing, and who actually turns out? I guess we'll see.

 

[PCHawk]

That will be interesting...my guess is gripes would be aimed more towards voter suppression efforts and foreign disinformation campaigns, and less toward election security.

One of the ironies of the GOP's long-standing efforts to make voting more difficult (or more secure, depending on your perspective) is that the demographics in which they are gaining popularity have generally been low-propensity voting blocks. There is a world in which they might actually end up harming their own efforts, though Trump has been historically good in mobilizing some of these low-propensity blocks...he is also historically good at mobilizing support against him.

An interesting factoid I heard recently: there are 91 million registered voters who have cast a vote against Trump (at least once) over the last 2 presidential elections, and there are 83 million registered voters who have cast a vote for Trump (at least once). So, which side is gaining, which side is losing, and who actually turns out? I guess we'll see.

If they are harming their own efforts by doing it, maybe the whole votor suppression thing is more about securing the election than suppressing votes. I really do mean maybe because I can see it either way.

 

[CP87]

If they are harming their own efforts by doing it, maybe the whole votor suppression thing is more about securing the election than suppressing votes. I really do mean maybe because I can see it either way.

It could be, and I am sure it is for many. I also think it could be a situation where making it harder to vote has been advantageous for the GOP for decades, and this change has been very rapid (within the last couple of years); it is hard to turn a political party on a dime.

 

[PCHawk]

It could be, and I am sure it is for many. I also think it could be a situation where making it harder to vote has been advantageous for the GOP for decades, and this change has been very rapid (within the last couple of years); it is hard to turn a political party on a dime.

There's no doubt Republicans have found out that laws that make sense to secure elections also help suppress likely domocrat votes. It's probably a kill two birds with one stone that has morphed into more laws to "secure elections" that kinda make sense but are more-so to prevent votes.

Just like on the other side turning a bit of a blind eye to the border has the benefit of showing sympathy to people who need it and also brings in future voters. Over time that probably has morphed into "let's bring in as many future votes as possible and it can also be played off as showing sympathy to people who need it".

Both sides probably started out with the right intentions, then realized the benefits and went to far.

 

[CP87]

There's no doubt Republicans have found out that laws that make sense to secure elections also help suppress likely domocrat votes. It's probably a kill two birds with one stone that has morphed into more laws to "secure elections" that kinda make sense but are more-so to prevent votes.

Just like on the other side turning a bit of a blind eye to the border has the benefit of showing sympathy to people who need it and also brings in future voters. Over time that probably has morphed into "let's bring in as many future votes as possible and it can also be played off as showing sympathy to people who need it".

Both sides probably started out with the right intentions, then realized the benefits and went to far.

And like voter suppression might be turning around to harm GOP, immigrants are definitely not uniformly supporting Democrats.

 

[thedukeofearl]

The DIVIDE is most concerning to me

There is a lot of Hatred going around and I don't think it can be healed

 

[NCHawker]

I was formerly a right-leaning centrist, but Trump and what he has done to the Republican party has pushed me leftward. I find his character and infidelity to the truth completely disqualifying. That said, I have lots of family who support him, and I know lots of folks around here do, too. I don't understand that, but I do not condemn those with different views than me.

I can understand ignoring some of his boorish or offensive behavior if you truly feel that these things are peripheral, and what really matters are his policies. I don't agree with all of his policies, but reasonable people can disagree on many of his stances.

But if you support him, how do you square that with so many of his former administration officials coming to the forefront to say he is unfit for this role?

His longest serving chief of staff (4* general John Kelly)

The former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (4* general Mark Milley)

Both of his secretaries of defense (4* general Jim Mattis; Dr. Mark Esper, former commander of Army 101st Airborne division, Chief of Staff at The Heritage Foundation, longtime GOP policy advisor)

His National Security Advisor (John Bolton)

His Vice President (Mike Pence)

Many lower-level aides (Sarah Matthews, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Cassidy Hutchinson)

And tons of others that would not go on record, but described the chaos of the White House on background.


Do none of these opinions of people who worked most closely with Trump give you pause? If that is the case, why do you find their opinions irrelevant?

Would love to hear your honest opinions, and I will not think any less of any of you for sharing (and hopefully you will not think less of me as a future Kamala voter).

This is pretty much where I am too. He’s not an effective leader of people or a statesman. If we were in another age where somehow we elected emperors then ya, ok

I have always disliked him and I voted twice him.

 

[Gibsonian]

Here's what the man that calls men and women who gave their lives for our country "sucker and losers" just sent me:

From Trump: The only thing I love more than winning?

Scott!

I really mean it.

Read my full memo:

http://45.djt.app/hM3Hm??

Stop2End

Get Outlook for iOS

The 45th President/Coward loves me! Isn't that nice. I still cannot vote for a man that attacked his own Capitol folks, nope.

 

[CP87]

Here's what the man that calls men and women who gave their lives for our country "sucker and losers" just sent me:

From Trump: The only thing I love more than winning?

Scott!

I really mean it.

Read my full memo:

http://45.djt.app/hM3Hm??

Stop2End

Get Outlook for iOS

The 45th President/Coward loves me! Isn't that nice. I still cannot vote for a man that attacked his own Capitol folks, nope.

It is good to be loved! Seems sincere...

 

[Gibsonian]

Because this got so far away from the original topic, just to reiterate...

Nearly half of Trump's cabinet, his Vice President, and numerous lower level staffers have not endorsed his campaign.

His first term was characterized by dysfunction within the executive branch, a stark inability to advance any sort of meaningful legislation aside from his tax cut though Republicans controlled both houses of Congress in the first half of his term, a massive failure of leadership under pressure (COVID), and an unwillingness to concede a lost election. As a cherry on the cake, he also retained classified documents after his presidency, failed to return them upon request, and actively tried to cover up his retention of said documents.

If elected, he would be the oldest person ever elected president. I will not speculate on his physical or cognitive health, but being president is a pretty demanding job for any 80 year old.

If that sounds like USA's best path forward, have at it, I guess. But I don't think it is possible for someone to present with any more red flags than this.

There are 44 total cabinet members from his reign in the WH and only 4 will publicly endorse him. The other 40, nope.

 

[CP87]

The DIVIDE is most concerning to me

There is a lot of Hatred going around and I don't think it can be healed

And most of us love our neighbors! Politics has forced division for a long time, but it has been a minor part of most of our lives. Cable news and social media has made it a much more in our face, and some have taken advantage of that to fear-monger and widen the division to their own purposes. I would say it happens from both sides, but the extent to which Trump has weaponized this is really unprecedented. It has been successful, but at what cost? And how do we put that genie back in the bottle?

Mankind has gotten through turbulent times before, and we probably will again. But like you, I don't see exactly how it happens in this instance. But I have optimism that it will, eventually.

 

[CP87]

There are 44 total cabinet members from his reign in the WH and only 4 will publicly endorse him. The other 40, nope.

I just want to be able to get back to hating each other for good old fashioned policy disagreements, as opposed to hating each other over the ranting and ravings of a self-serving narcissist who happens to be really good as self-promotion and has no fidelity to the truth.

 

[Fryowa]

This whole idea that all politicians are liars and untrustworthy, therefore all politicians are equally bad, frankly, is probably not the best way to look at it, although I can understand your cynicism.

Whenever a candidate applies for a job, usually the employer does a background check and the candidate is supposed to provide references and employment history to the employer. And if the candidate does not pass the background check, or if his references don't vouch for him, that candidate usually is not considered for the job.

If voters think of themselves as the hiring employer, do they have an obligation to make sure the candidate they are voting for, has passed the background check?

That's a head-in-the-sand argument. It's what they want you to think.

You actually think the American public is hiring these people?

That may have been true generations ago. But not in several generations has this thing been about what the public wants, what's best for the public, or decided by the public.

America is not a democracy my friend. By no definition in existence is it a democracy. We live in a strict duopoly controlled by wealthy people and companies, who are smart enough to employ people (candidates an congress/senate members) who want money and power and will do their bidding under the guise of doing what's best for us.

In this country if you are not toed to either the democratic or republican line, you have no glimmer of hope whatsoever of being the president. The party machines control that. It's not about being "best for the job." The parties don't want the best person for the job. They don't care about that. They care about finding the person most likely to be elected so the party has control of the congress, the senate, and the presidency. The people and corporations behind the scenes decide who they want as politicians and that's your choice whether you like it or not. If Joe the lawyer down the street is a great guy and a capable person, and decides to run for office he doesn't get to. Because if you're not the guy the party wants you are excluded. To think it's not that way is idiotic; I'm sorry but it's true. To look at Harris and Trump and think either is the person best suited to lead a great country of 350 million people is absolutely absurd. Those two people are the ones the party machines decided can rile the public up enough to win an election and thus win for their respective parties and lobbies.

Get your head out of the sand, amigo. You don't have to like it, but just be conscious to it.

No democracy in the US for a long time. Read the actual definition of that word.

Then look up the definition of the word duopoly.

 

[Fryowa]

The United States is not a democracy and never has been. It is more of a republic and the electoral college aligns with that. It also prevents the largest 5 States from overwhelming elections.

It used to be a republic and it's turned into a duopoly over the past 40, maybe 50 years depending on criteria.