You must log in or register to comment.

avo_cado t1_j84x18n wrote

I’m not a lawyer can you summarize?


susinpgh OP t1_j850qzh wrote

The Republicans wanted to have a third party review of the 2020 election results. Part of their plan was to release individual voting records to this third party, which would contain sensitive information (like partial social security numbers).

I found another article that is more plain language:


quietreasoning t1_j85bgpo wrote

Trying to scare people off from voting in the future. GD Nazis


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85qchr wrote

I am happy about this ruling too, but calling the opposing party Nazis ad nauseum is kinda.... nauseating. Are they out slaughtering millions of innocent people? No. They're espousing political positions you disagree with. Here, they were arguing for something rather stupid - releasing voter personal information to some 3rd party. Still not genocide. Still not an attempt to topple the democratic governments of all of their geographic neighbors.

And they think the left is the Nazis. They look at how one right which is explicit in the Constitution can be broadly infringed by Democrat-led attacks while the Democrats demand recognition for a right which is not explicit in the document but exists in the penumbra.

So can we please temper the "Everyone but us is literally Hitler" nonsensical reaction crap?


OldHeinzFactory t1_j85r4u5 wrote

Doug Mastriano is a reactionary christian theocrat who wants to abolish separation of church and state to push his warped views on everyone. He believes joe biden stolen the 2020 election and he paid for busloads of fascists to storm the capitol on january 6th which he was also at himself. He believes america is a "christian nation" that is "waging battle" against "evil". He openly rejects that the term "white nationalist" is bad. He is a fascist, plain and simple.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86ace3 wrote

Considering that MastriaNO is not a Catholic (note: not everyone with an Italian surname is Catholic), why would you post such a thing?


susinpgh OP t1_j85t1iu wrote

This is a really narrow take on the use of the term Nazi. Many of the actions of the current GOP bear a striking resemblance to the policies of fascism. There is a very good reason that this comparison; fascism is invariably oppressive.

Yes, it is unfortunate that conservatives are being painted with a broad brush. But they are also not disavowing the extreme far right adherents to repressive ideologies. The Republican party needs to distance itself from these extremists if they want to maintain any credibility.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86a1yd wrote

>it is unfortunate that conservatives are being painted with a broad brush

It is unfortunate that some folks are calling all republicans things such as nazis. Some of the republicans, however, very much act like nazis (excluding, of course, the butchering of Jews, Catholics, Poles, Ukranians, Russian soldiers, etc.), and some support the behaviors and acts of self-identified nazis. Perhaps if they would stop their micro-wars against certain segments of our population and against the whole concept of democracy.


decrementsf t1_j89jvwz wrote

> This is a really narrow take on the use of the term Nazi. Many of the actions of the current GOP bear a striking resemblance to the policies of fascism.

You know this take is wrong.

The East German Stasi labeled your neighbors fascist to justify use of state power to oppress the people. It is always the same.

The frame is wrong. Democrats get the same label when they speak out of turn about policy they disagree with. Meanwhile policy is indistinguishable from the worst roll-up of power that took place under Bush-Cheney.

There's a fascist in the room. It's the one holding the power to send law enforcement to your door, close your bank and social media accounts, and have Gawker-tier Inquisition harass your neighbors and friends while calling you the Nazi. Your family and friends and neighbors are good people. The ones who will stand next to you when misfortune strikes. Stand in the way to protect you from that same inquisition.

The correct frame is top-down authoritarianism vs whether the taxpaying public get a voice. The bounds of that conflict overlap all partisan orientations.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85vk4r wrote

I appreciate the reasonable reply - it seems to be a diamond in the rough here.

Let's say, arguendo at least, I understand why "the Left" wants to label "the Right" (or at least some on the right) as fascists or Nazis. I try my best to understand the opposing argument as best I can before I dig in my heels on my own, and I can see at least some of what the Left feels is oppressive.

Can you try to cross the aisle and do the same for me? Here's some of what the Right is seeing, I think, when they say, as I've unfortunately heard, the Left are the New Nazis. There have been multiple pro-gun court rulings. There was the Heller decision and now the Bruen decision, both substantially supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, despite the Bruen decision, has NY opened the way to legal concealed carry? Not as well as they'd have you believe. And other states have heavy restrictions on gun owners and gun ownership. Some cities have even more strict laws within their own confines. But while legal gun owners have continued to accept jumping through hoops to obtain legal firearms, criminals continue to ignore the ATF and obtain illegal weapons anyway. The Right essentially sees this as allowing criminals to be perpetually armed while restricting access to "law-abiding citizens." Meanwhile, we hear plenty about abortion and the "right" to abortion. There's no explicit grant of a right to obtain an abortion, yet I'd argue such an individual right falls to the People under the 10th Amendment. I believe Roe relied on the woman's 14th Amendment right to privacy.... itself a right that exists by interpretation of the court, not by explicit grant (remember that RBG herself didn't like Roe's reasoning, though I don't remember her specific grounds). All of this is to say, we argue all of this because there's no explicit grant of the right. But there is an explicit grant in the 2nd Amendment. And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord.

And guns are just the easiest example to thing of off the top of my head. I'll leave you with that for the moment. As far as disavowing, I've always sort of disagreed on how much a person is, themselves, incriminated by their failure to "disavow" someone else loudly enough to satisfy their opposition. FWIW, I think the smartest GOP have moved on from Trump, yet there's just enough of both sides still giving him attention to make it worth it for him.


steelceasar t1_j861gg2 wrote

None of what you wrote addresses why the right is compared to fascists. The right wing is compared to fascists because of their broad distain for the democratic process, there unrelenting focus on maintaining cultural hegemony, by targeting this fake border crisis (what has changed since Biden took over, what policies or actions?). The glorification of Christian nationalism as a substitute for anything related to intellectualism (IE public education, college education, and "liberalism". And continuous reliance upon strong populist, authoritarian politicians like Trump and Desantis. I could go on, as there are still many authoritarian actions and perspectives that you can point to.


Also you don't have a very nuanced understanding of history if you think that the revolution boiled down to King George III trying to take everyone's guns. It is funny that you think that though, it certainly illustrates how your warped obsession with the 2nd amendment and firearms dictates how you view history and politics.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86bkmv wrote

Ohh my lord. I love when you guys take what I said word for word and act like it's in a vacuum, or even better put words in my mouth. I am not saying "the revolution boiled down to" a gun grab. My lord. I said the very specific battles of Lexington and Concord, the "shot heard round the world" and all that? Look up why the redcoats were marching on those towns. Did I say "the revolution?" I mentioned specific things. Please do not straw man me - where you make an argument that is easier for you to attack and "win" over. Thank you.


steelceasar t1_j86f5n0 wrote

"And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord."

You wrote the above. So you are in fact arguing that you did not mean what you said? I don't need to construct a straw man argument, because either you have no idea what you are talking about, or your written communication skills are so underdeveloped that you are incapable of articulating it.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86ixwq wrote

Yes, I did write the above and I stand by it, but you have to take into consideration the entire block, not just cherry pick which parts you'd like to reply to.

In that entire reply, I was making several points that add up to my overall argument:

  1. Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

  2. Gun owners see increasing regulatory hoops to jump through in acquiring firearms legally whilst criminals continue to ignore the laws to acquire their illegal weaponry... illegally.

  3. The Constitution deals with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." You can argue about to whom the right is granted if you don't like the Heller decision. But it does explicitly refer to a "right" and it grants it by saying "it shall not be infringed" (logically, it has to have been granted and exist as a right if it can be protected from infringement, right?).

  4. a) There is no explicit mention of a "right" to abortion in the document, and so if that right does exist, it exists within something else that is explicit - i.e. the right to abortion exists in the penumbra, as SCOTUS has said. b) When gun owners are seeing their explicit right being infringed while Democrats demand their non-explicit right be upheld, it makes them feel just as angry as when women feel their rights are being infringed.


  1. a) There really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history, for example b) King George was on the wrong side of history when, for example he started the American Revolution by sending troops to confiscate arms from the colonists.

AND SO.... all of that was to support my ORIGINAL argument, which is simply that the accusation of Nazi affiliation is being bandied about unnecessarily and ad nauseum. I was not attempting to boil down the entire revolution or even just the whole "taxation without representation" thing into my own gun rights argument. My bit at the end of that whole block about King George was merely one example to support the argument that governments restricting or taking firearms rights aren't ever "in the right," which itself was to support the larger argument at hand (about the over-use of "Nazi," to be perfectly clear. I'd hate to leave any bit of ambiguity for you to cling to.)

My communication skills have served me thus fine so far in life. I used to be a pre-law student. I was in my 7th undergrad semester before ditching the field for IT. I did crap tons of writing to get to that 7th semester, my friend, so if some guy on Reddit wants to critique my writing.... I have to critique your reading skills.


IamSauerKraut t1_j876kd3 wrote

>Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

The case which is the topic of this thread has nothing to do with a Democrat-run legislature. Indeed, the Petitioner in the action is a Republican-run committee in the Republican-majority PA State Senate. It seems as if you are attempting to hijack the thread. Or, perhaps your communication skills are not all that great.


steelceasar t1_j86le19 wrote

I can see why you would abandon the liberal arts, reality and history have a little too much nuance for you to engage with adequately I guess.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86oln3 wrote

If you have nothing to reply with except ad hom attacks, just save your time and effort.


IamSauerKraut t1_j8767i7 wrote

>There have been multiple pro-gun court rulings.

Which have very little do - even as analogies - with the ruling in this specific kerfuffle between 2 branches of government in which the 3rd branch is reluctant to engage.


Timewasted11222 t1_j85v294 wrote

Tell that to Biden who is the close friend of an extremist.


steelceasar t1_j86036o wrote

And who would that be?


Timewasted11222 t1_j866iuv wrote

And also said he didn’t want black students going to school with white kids. But let me guess he’s changed.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86a5wt wrote

Byrd has long been dead. And he changed his tune long before that.


yeags86 t1_j87ag3e wrote

Just because you can’t change your shitty opinions doesn’t mean others can’t.


Timewasted11222 t1_j8665az wrote

Robert Byrd . Look it up


yeags86 t1_j87hez9 wrote

Nick Fuentes. Look him up.


Timewasted11222 t1_j88fo4k wrote

I know yeah the white supremist who’s actually Hispanic. Yeah makes as much sense as the democrat party. Nice try but but cnn calling him a supremist doesn’t mean it actually is


Timewasted11222 t1_j88ftza wrote

Or is it because he’s a proud American and to you clowns that means your a white nationalist


quietreasoning t1_j85qqag wrote

Not sorry for being politically incorrect. Shove the both sides bullshit. The people who hate immigrants, jews, brown people, and women are called nazis. They are a danger and a scourge. Just wait til they shoot out your local power station on a cold winter night.


Timewasted11222 t1_j85vfm5 wrote

What party hates Jews women and brown people ? Last I checked democrats do nothing but use people for votes. The only reason you think like that is because you lack intellect and can’t formulate your own opinion. Stop watching CNN and the rest of your bullshit media lying agencies


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85r985 wrote

That's a lovely straw man you've made in order to argue against a simplistic generalization you've made in your head. Perhaps you're an intelligent person and your anger, coupled with encouragement from the up-votes of the Reddit hive mind, has simply prevented you from making a calm and reasonable argument. Try again! I'll wait.


quietreasoning t1_j85uaf2 wrote

It's reality and you're either thinking you're benefiting from it or intentionally ignoring it to act like this. Jan 6th insurrectionists and traitors and terrorists are what these people are or supporting. It must be acknowledged with proper punishment, imprisonment, forbiddance from office, and loss of voting rights. We have laws that have been broken and we need to see justice.


Atrocious_1 t1_j85umtr wrote

How is what they claimed a strawman?


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85wif3 wrote

They said, in reply to my statement about both the left and the right of the US political spectrum not really being "nazis":

>The people who hate immigrants, jews, brown people, and women are called nazis. They are a danger and a scourge. Just wait til they shoot out your local power station on a cold winter night.

Not sure what he's on about with the power station thing - perhaps I'm behind on current events - but let's look at the rest. Who "hates" those groups of people? Show me proof he isn't just making up a straw man. Show me proof that some noteworthy proportion of the "Right wing" or the GOP actually "hates" anyone. And not by your own subjective interpretation, I'm talking like I want to hear them saying who they hate and why - is it brown-skinned people because they're brown? Or are you just hearing about support for strong immigration policy and interpreting something you think is "hate"? Because otherwise, what they said is 100% straw man.


Atrocious_1 t1_j85wnac wrote

Ok you're an idiot thanks


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85wsu4 wrote

I'm sorry you looked at a reasonable reply and decided to use an ad hom attack. That speaks boatloads about you. Please don't waste my time replying to me again.


Atrocious_1 t1_j85y20t wrote

I didn't see anything reasonable. I saw someone who is either oblivious to how the current GOP operates with it's culture war issues, or is desperate to pretend it's not happening


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86brb2 wrote

Okay, thank you for such a substantive reply. I see the errors of my thinking, and now I agree with everything you say. I have up-voted each of your comments to reflect that I have joined into the hive mind. Thank you for being so enlightening. ;)


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86cjpi wrote

Also, "reasonable" doesn't mean you agree with it. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it unreasonable, irrational, illogical or anything at all. I'm sorry you've taken the position of disagreeing with me and yet not having anything to support your own position.


steelceasar t1_j862ksr wrote

> Show me proof he isn't just making up a straw man.

You have no idea what a strawman argument even is do you?


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86b9mv wrote

A straw man argument is one which you make up in order to attack it and "win" an easier battle. Yes, I do know, and I clearly demonstrated why the above is a straw man. You are pretending that these people hate something they never said they hate. You have put words in their mouths. You have created a straw man argument, which is that they hate minorities, so that you can see yourself as the victor. In fact, they do not hate minorities. You have created that position for them. Thus, the epitome of a straw man, but do go on. Tell me why that isn't a perfect example of such a logical fallacy.


Timewasted11222 t1_j87p9xg wrote

They’re all full of it, And they don’t make sense. Funny how they even think. They sound like they have that indoctrination that media has given them . You can see that cnn is watched in their homes probably all the time


ImperatorTempus42 t1_j85r6z6 wrote

When the GOP stops wanting to kill my grandmother for being brown-skinned, a Hispanic-American, and a Catholic, and stops wanting to wipe out my Jewish friends and relatives, and stops hating me for being a bisexual trans person, then they won't be Nazis.

Also they support and continue the genocide of LGBT folks with their "gay conversion" camps and actively encourage hunting trans children in schools.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85rqet wrote

Please show me any evidence you have of any noteworthy proportion of the GOP wanting to "kill" anyone? I'm interested in the heaps of evidence you must have. I will remain open-minded as I review whatever you choose to submit in support of what I can otherwise only conclude is a ridiculous straw man argument.

E: I love when people get to reply to me and don't have to remain open to any reply that might counter their position. Wow. But, in reply to u/jesterwords:

Interesting, I see the scumbags in your article employed a rather familiar technique some in this thread may recognize: baselessly accusing your opposition of being a Nazi. ;)

I read that article. It objectively paints a very damning picture of DuPont and many DuPont execs, but beyond that, the article's support for the argument, here, that the GOP wants to "kill" people (on the level of Nazis, who quite literally slaughtered millions of innocent people) is extremely weak. If you went to the effort of proving every legislator who fell for DuPont's lobbying was GOP, it still wouldn't make it reasonable to call the GOP Nazis or even say that they want to kill people. Falling for billions of dollars of industry lobbying happens to Democrats, too - and gun control is an incredibly easy example of that. And falling for lobbying and making policy based on lobbying is more of an argument against Capitalism as a system than it is an argument that the GOP wants to kill anyone.

Since Reddit likes to allow the BS replies but then blocks me from countering.... u/Patiod: I need proof that anyone, but especially any noteworthy proportion of the GOP, is in a "Save the children, literally kill Democrats" mentality. Otherwise I can't move forward in this discussion with you.


goplantagarden t1_j85tf7n wrote

Off the top of my head: My trans friend, who needed to quit her TX teaching job because of the constant death threats. The school basically told her she was a liability, although having worked there for several years with an exemplary teaching record.

Where is the proof you need? It's not really necessary for the rest of us when we can see for ourselves how conservatives behave and treat others every day.

Unfortunately for me I live in an ocean of conservatism and people don't bother holding back because they assume I feel the same way.


yeags86 t1_j87auh5 wrote

The Nazi’s didn’t start outright killing people. It was a slow burn. If you can’t see how the current GOP is going down the same path, you need to dust off a couple history books.


Patiod t1_j8dyixi wrote

Positioning all Democrats as pedophile "groomers" and child abusers sets gullible conservatives/Christians into a mindset where they need to "save the children" by killing Democrats. If you don't think this speech inspires murder, just look at the Comet Pizza debacle.

It's not binary: "Nazi" or "not-Nazi" - you don't get to Full Nazi overnight. I totally get your concern about cheapening the word "nazi" but there's value in warning people that we seem to be on a similar track to Germany in the 30s.


gdex86 t1_j88hi2m wrote

This is so lazy I was going to just snark and ignore but since people actually read lets break down how this is so fucking lazy and how intellectually dishonest it is.

>Are they out slaughtering millions of innocent people? No.

Yeah because that was late stage nazi actions. We luckily aren't there yet because we can still nip it in the bud. But the fact they want to have the government collect all information on people who request to transition is how we get there. When you are going to go and gather the location information of all of a marginalized people you are in the first steps towards a "final solution.

Now lets talk about the republican party in general. They are the party that is openly aligned with white ethnostate/supremacists. That's a pretty big step into nazism because well if you need me to explain that to you you are already lost. I'd also point out that the republican political message is almost entirely based on blaming some small marginalized group be it gays, drag queens, trans people, in Europe Muslims for the decline of the "white race". And if only they could get rid of "those people" they could improve things.

Secondly they are fascists. For the past 7 years it's been the republican point of view that any election they lose it's not because they lost but because it was stolen from them. Starting with the head of the party in Donald Trump. They called for the illegal over throw of an election, and their supporters went to the capital to attempt a violent over throw of the election. This isn't getting into the state level where we have multiple examples where upon losing an election they immediate start in the lame duck session voting away powers they had gladly used to keep the incoming party or administration from doing it.

So we got a party that has a bunch of racist fascists in it that want to purify America for the good of the white race. Your first defense is going to be "But it's not everyone." Yeah not everyone is like that, but the damning thing is that isn't enough of a deal breaker for them to get out. Many nazi's weren't deeply into the murder of the Jews but just were going to go along with the flow for the good of Germany. The party at large is fine with those people not only being in their party but greatly shaping it's political goals because of what Guns or Taxes. That is exactly like nazi germany.

So we got something that goosesteps like a brown shirt and heils like a brown shirt but you don't want to call it a brown shirt


eonerv t1_j88fefq wrote

No. They literally call themselves National Christians.

NatCs if you will. So yea, I'll still call a Nazi a Nazi thank you very much.


whomp1970 t1_j8dvm04 wrote

Man, I get it. Really, I get what you're trying to say.

But just like "Kleenex" now means tissues (rather than just one brand of tissues) and "Google it" means "use a search engine" (even if you use Bing) ...

I think "Nazi" has lost its specificity. It now literally means "someone exercising authority with evil intentions", or something else generic like that.

Railing against that change in word usage will do you no good.

It's like, technically, you're correct, but nobody cares and everyone understands what the intent was.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j8e03le wrote

But I'm not just technically correct. All this anger and vitriol spewed here at me hasn't proved that there is any noteworthy proportion of the GOP who wants these extremes. Hence why they're called extremists. If y'all are going to blanket label the other party anything without truly paying attention, while shoving so much hate into their arguments where it just isn't, then I can't help you folks. Clearly, the reactionary and immature "everyone is Nazis" is going to win out with the Reddit crowd, and no matter how many times I ask for proof of the allegations, none is provided, only "you should know," and, "You're just blind/ignorant," etc. If the Right wing failed to provide evidence as much as the Left in this post, they'd be crucified by the Left. Someone tried to show me 1 article about DuPont being evil and man was it a long read, but all it showed is that Dupont is a big, rich scummy lobbying company. When I tried to analyze the article, no one wants to play ball because they can't have their positions challenged when the almighty Reddit up-vote count is egging them on.


BabyBatterBaller t1_j86t298 wrote

The political party that is being opposed is currently saying, and pushing through legislation that LGBT+ persons, by sheerly mentioning their status as a LGBT+ person, even in as small of way as mentioning they have a Husband/Wife, in the vicinity of a child is 'grooming children'.

Grooming children is a literal crime. One you can go to jail for. It's fucking stupid to then argue then that they wouldn't push to have LGBT+ persons in jail for it.


NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j870c5i wrote

When you say "the political party" is doing something that seems to imply an official party position or support from a significant proportion of the party.

Can you prove either of those things regarding these grooming laws?


yeags86 t1_j87bcjx wrote

Well, FL and TX for starters. And Trumps bizarre video about “ending transgender” a week or two ago.


MeEvilBob t1_j86togk wrote

The republicans won't stop until they're allowed to appoint someone king of America, although they might settle for bringing back all the Jim Crow laws.


hooch t1_j86fjvp wrote

Yeah that sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen


IamSauerKraut t1_j86kn2w wrote

No. Does not meet criteria.


hooch t1_j86pkv3 wrote

It would after the inevitable leak of private data from that third party


IamSauerKraut t1_j8717hl wrote

No one knows if the matter will reappear in the Senate's future. Committee essentially does not exist.


Little_Noodles t1_j8504fa wrote

State Senate Republicans are still trying to litigate the 2020 election to undermine voting operations. They had sued to get access to every voter in the state’s partial Social Security numbers, drivers license info, and other confidential information.

The court just told them that they could keep trying, but they weren’t going to get help from the courts.


HeyZuesHChrist t1_j85gayn wrote

I know that denial is a part of the grieving process but at this point you would think they would have moved on to acceptance.


Little_Noodles t1_j86b7hd wrote

I think all but the dumbest of them have. At this point, it’s a way to throw meat to the base and a convenient pretense for justifying voter suppression


MeEvilBob t1_j86tuci wrote

> but they weren’t going to get help from the courts.

That remains to be seen. They might not get help from that one judge, but they have countless other judges in their back pocket.


IamSauerKraut t1_j869ikx wrote

This is NOT a voting rights victory.



avo_cado t1_j869qdw wrote



IamSauerKraut t1_j86auq1 wrote

The ruling did not pertain to voting rights. Nor did any of the related lawsuits. And, yes, I not only have read all of the lawsuits covered by the ruling but also have copies of the complaints, exhibits and other filings (example: briefs in support). Pertains to the so-called "election integrity" kerfuffle instead of voting rights.

Edit: Now that you've had the opportunity to read, take the opportunity to look at the case filings to see that 95 M.D. 2022 is not a voting rights case.


CarrotTotal4955 t1_j86g5ii wrote

Facts. Careful though, emotions = facts on Reddit. The hive mind might get you.


Rmlady12152 t1_j86cwwf wrote

The republicans in Pa have lost their fucking Q minds. It’s insane. So many need mental help.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86m0h0 wrote

>The republicans in Pa have lost their fucking Q minds

Worth repeating.


always-tired60 t1_j88w6sb wrote

Fun fact: I voted by mail in Luzerne County and my vote was never counted ( still pending 🙄)


DanKarPgh t1_j8g9fa5 wrote

750,000+ Dem votes for potus in 5 hours overnight.... No fraud at all... Keep up your illusions of no fraud occurring .. It'll serve you well in '24.


susinpgh OP t1_j8gc6d4 wrote

How many times do you have to hear about how there was no fraud found before you give this up? Can I ask, how old are you? Genuinely curious, here.


[deleted] t1_j871sq9 wrote



susinpgh OP t1_j872hf8 wrote

Are you serious? Where are you even coming from with associating Shapiro with Nazis? Get a grip, dude.


pocketbookashtray t1_j87c7i3 wrote

Democrats are America’s Nazi party. Sorry that offends you. But it’s true.


yeags86 t1_j87i54p wrote

It’s not offensive. It’s just inaccurate and makes you an idiot for coming to that conclusion.


Finrodsrod t1_j88awug wrote

You know Josh Shapiro is Jewish right? You make it so easy to report your comment as hate speech


Timewasted11222 t1_j85q449 wrote

I just hope when you don’t get the candidate of your choice you remember what you said about the voting process.


SunOutrageous6098 t1_j86g3x3 wrote

In every election except for the 2020 General Election, and I guess the 2022 General Election in Arizona, the losing party has simply cried a river, built a bridge, and gotten over it.

No one ever seems to contest Primaries, even in States with Open Primaries.

Trump and Lake seem to be the only two that refuse to understand that their constituents chose someone else to lead.


MeEvilBob t1_j86ufi0 wrote

I'm sure if you interviewed the whole population, less than a third would even know what the primaries are.

Even less would know that municipal elections exist. It's insane how many people will brag about who they voted for president but have no idea who's running for mayor in their own city.


SunOutrageous6098 t1_j8acnp4 wrote

Yes, you can tell just by voter turnout percentages. I was really hoping that all the attention elections were getting would help people understand that your local elections matter just as much, if not more, but instead we just got a buncha tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who just go deeper every time their theory is debunked.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86lxf1 wrote

We often "don't get the candidate of [our] choice" but we don't whine like a bunch of crybabies or engage in sedition because we are unhappy with the results.


Socketfusion t1_j87mbsz wrote

How many democrat led investigations into voter fraud or election rigging were there when Trump won?


Timewasted11222 t1_j87pd01 wrote


Socketfusion t1_j87tx76 wrote

Of course there were plenty of people saying he shouldn't be president. He lost the popular vote. Where are the investigations claiming fraud though?Trump won PA when he wasn't expected to. Was there audits? County Commissioners refusing to certify results? Did the democrats start looking for bamboo in the ballots? Did democrats break into the US capitol to try to stop the certification of the election? Did democrats hold large "stop the steal" protests? Did a bunch of democrats still have Hillary signs up on their lawns two years later?

I'm unaffiliated and there are certainly some major problems with the DNC. But the GOP is giving anti-vax jewish space lasers lady a prime committee position and have a dude who took a 17 year old across state lines to have sex with her still in congress while the Dems forced out Al Franken. And Franken deserved it. But what he did is a pretty low bar compared to sitting congresspeople in the GOP. Clean your house and quit your whining.


No-Neighborhood-7264 t1_j85ibrw wrote

Why wouldn't you want a fair election process? Why not just have voter ID?


susinpgh OP t1_j85igo8 wrote

There is already a fair election process.


Atrocious_1 t1_j85ymjh wrote

Not if you're a conservative who has realized unless they can do some voter suppression, they can't win


No-Neighborhood-7264 t1_j85j48c wrote

If everything is on the up and up, just have voter ID. Why does it take 2 days to count votes?


themollusk t1_j85jlry wrote

Because Republicans won't allow it to take less. Or only takes longer than a day because the PAGOP wouldn't allow for precanvassing.


Steelplate7 t1_j85slpd wrote

Mail in votes can’t be counted until the polls close. That means every person in the state who voted by mail, their ballots have to be fed into the counting machine. That’s why it takes days(and longer with close races).

Guess who came up with that one? The GOP.


susinpgh OP t1_j85jss5 wrote

Requiring Voter ID that has a fee attached is unconstitutional. If the ID that is required is free, then I wouldn't have a problem with requiring voter ID. It takes as long as it takes to make sure that every vote is counted.


BigMoose9000 t1_j85npe4 wrote

Then why won't the Democrats support free IDs? Life without an ID is next to impossible, the election security aspect is like the least of the problems it would fix.


susinpgh OP t1_j85rqbf wrote

IIRC, when the PA GOP proposed instituting voter ID several years ago, PA democrats said yes, with the caveat that the ID be free. The PA GOP refused that caveat.

For me, it all boils down to any kind of barrier to voting based on paying for the right, or having to pass a literacy test, or having to pass a history test.


Flimsy-Lie-1471 t1_j85xm3x wrote

“Election security“ is just fascist dog whistle for voter suppression.


BigMoose9000 t1_j85yvxg wrote

Most of Europe, not to mention Canada, require an ID to vote - not "make it easier with an ID", it's a hard requirement.

How is that requirement fascist here, but nowhere else?


ieatpotatochips t1_j867ipe wrote

Since you are using Canada as an example here are the list of IDs that are acceptable to vote in Canada.

Notice it’s a very long list of IDs and how many of the IDs listed would be free or something you already have because your a member of an organization or make use of some specific service that an organization provides. It’s a very comprehensive list that makes a wide array of options available to Canadian voters and ensures that as many people as possible can participate in the election and not be left out. This is the opposite of what’s generally proposed by the GOP. In our country the voter ID that is proposed is usually either a drivers license, which is not free but also not something everyone who is voter eligible can obtain. They also propose a regular government ID, again something that id not free and unavailable to some people who should be allowed to vote. Or other times they propose a whole new voter specific ID but again something that is never proposed as free and comes with new rules about who is eligible which would again exclude people who should be eligible to vote.


Flimsy-Lie-1471 t1_j86p14c wrote

Do they charge for the ID q-tip? Think long and hard before you lie to me.


BigMoose9000 t1_j87gns1 wrote


WikiSummarizerBot t1_j87gp6w wrote

[Canadian provincial and territorial photo cards]( card valid for a,for a fee of $20.&text=Seniors do not pay a renew fee.)

>In Canada, provincial driver's licences are the primary form of government-issued photo ID. Most Canadian provinces produce photo ID cards for Canadians who do not drive. A common feature of these cards is that it cannot be held concurrently with a valid drivers licence.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Diarygirl t1_j88rc1u wrote

They don't require registration ahead of time.


Finrodsrod t1_j88adjb wrote

So you're proposing increases in taxes to make this possible?


BigMoose9000 t1_j8a7fft wrote

Nah we can shift money around from elsewhere - maybe blow up a few less kids in the Middle East and use the money we save on missiles.


rivershimmer t1_j85oo11 wrote

I have no problem with voter ID in and of itself; however, Republicans have been using the issue as a tool of disenfranchisement. Until that ends, I'll fight against changing the methods Pennsylvania has been using securely for years now.

>Why does it take 2 days to count votes?

Because of the concessions the Republicans in the legislature demanded when it comes to counting mail-in ballots.


ImperatorTempus42 t1_j85rrm4 wrote

Because unlike countries like Brazil, we have a major political party dedicated to making voting as hard as possible for people. Brazil held its presidential election via phone-based voting, and their country didn't collapse. But no, we have to do it in person on a shit weekday most of the time. Also, voter ID ought to just be your state ID or license, not a specific seperate ID, which also sounds unconstitutional.


DeHizzy420 t1_j85tc5f wrote

See? Right there.... You don't know what you're talking about... Republicans are the reason it takes so long to count votes...


Flimsy-Lie-1471 t1_j85xdio wrote

Tell me you hate America without telling me you hate America. You fascists are disgusting.


69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j89of2u wrote

Voter ID is already required. This meme that anyone can register and just roll into a poling place and vote without ID is a lie.

> Why does it take 2 days to count votes?

Wait until you hear how long it took to count votes historically.


ell0bo t1_j85jcbg wrote

What's not fair about our current election process?

Voter ID is fine if you can guarantee everyone can get an ID without cost or effort. Can you guarantee that?


themollusk t1_j85ju4j wrote

Exactly. ZERO cost, and ZERO effort outside of requesting it. Until the GOP gets on board with that, voter ID is a total non starter.


No-Neighborhood-7264 t1_j85judb wrote

We can guarantee everything else in this state, and there is plenty of programs that provide so much already,why wouldn't we be able to provide ID's ? And why shouldn't voting be an effort? Nothing is free.


ell0bo t1_j85l3rd wrote

Because this is the land of the free and voting is a right. You want a fair election process, but aren't against it requiring effort to vote. That doesn't sound fair to me...

Also, this state can't guarantee shit.


yeags86 t1_j87donb wrote

If poll taxes (which are illegal) are fine with you, which constitutional right are you willing to give up in return?


SunOutrageous6098 t1_j85nyw0 wrote

You already produce ID to register to vote and to have your absentee or mail in ballot counted.

It’s like showing your ID to enter the liquor store and again to check out.


ShatterZero t1_j86i288 wrote

> wHy cAn't wE HaVe pOlL TaXeS ThAt pReVeNt pOoR PeOpLe fRoM VoTiNg? wHaT'S WrOnG WiTh hAvInG A PoLl tAx? iF YoU CaN'T PaY To vOtE, yOu sHoUlDn't bE AbLe tO VoTe. aLl wE'Re dOiNg iS MaKiNg sUrE ReSpOnSiBlE TaX PaYeRs vOtE. HoNeStLy, It sHoUlDn't cOsT AnYtHiNg, ThAt's wRoNg, BuT We sHoUlD JuSt mAkE SuRe oNlY PeOpLe wHo oWn tHeIr oWn hOmEs vOtE. HoMeOwNeRs aRe tHe rEaL ReSpOnSiBlE PeOpLe iN ThIs cOuNtRy.

/u/No-Neighborhood-7264, probably


IamSauerKraut t1_j86lpg5 wrote

>Why wouldn't you want a fair election process?

The Commonwealth ran 2 sets of audits. PA had a fair election process. Certain R's simply refused to accept the results. Too bad for them.


Frosty_Entertainer58 t1_j85l8iv wrote

I agree. When Stacy Abrams conceited to allowing Voter I.D. in Georgia. The Republicans declined. It's worth more to them as a Complaint, then a Problem to actually Address


Diarygirl t1_j88qov4 wrote

If you weren't complaining about voter ID, you would just come up with another excuse for why you think elections you lose are illegitimate.


Timewasted11222 t1_j85qcbu wrote

Because how would they cheat ? They’re as stupid as their entire party is. The party of morons


Timewasted11222 t1_j85efdv wrote

So let’s get this clear. OP is happy that voter fraud was possible and because the candidate they want won they don’t want the state to ensure this doesn’t happen again


susinpgh OP t1_j85i8sz wrote

There is absolutely no reason for a third-party to review data at this depth. There have been several local reviews, some of them repeated. There is one currently going on (sorry, I can't remember off hand which county).


IamSauerKraut t1_j86b4xn wrote

Fulton County was done by Wake TSI. There is a long report.

Also, the Commonwealth sent out a request to 67 counties, of which 64 participated (Greene, Franklin, Lancaster and one other chose not to participate). Showed the election was free, fair and with only a few very small issues.

Some of what Dush's committee sought is now required pursuant to the settlement of a Jill Stein lawsuit. Dush no longer heads that committee and the proposed $270K contract with Envoy Sage appears to be void.


artisanrox t1_j8acxzg wrote

There IS reason to do this if you're pro fascist and want to start handing out some serious social/economic/etc consequences by how you saw people vote.


Comrade_Joe22 t1_j85g95x wrote

Almost every instance of voter fraud was from the GOP but go on


Timewasted11222 t1_j85vuwn wrote

So those videos of people covering the windows were by gop ? Stop it


IamSauerKraut t1_j86c678 wrote

What does covering windows have to do with certain republican men voting for their long-dead mothers?


SuggestAPhotoProject t1_j85o2i8 wrote

So let’s get this clear. u/Timewasted11222 has seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any voting impropriety, but they’re still angry because their God Emperor told them to be angry, so they’re insulting OP.

After 60+ failed lawsuits, only the most gullible moron on Earth would still beileve Trump’s Big Lie.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86ku0p wrote

It's not gullible. It just wants to shitpost and muddy the waters. But most of us see clear thru it.


Timewasted11222 t1_j85unia wrote

No what I said is that all elections should have integrity and should be verified. How do you do that ? Every voter should have ID to vote. You show ID to get on a plane you show ID to buy beer/cigarettes but not to vote on who leads the states and country ? Smh you people are special


IamSauerKraut t1_j86l326 wrote

>should be verified. How do you do that ?

The Commonwealth ran 2 audits. Fulton also did its thing but could not find what it with Mastro and Ward's assistance tried to create out of thin air. The results of 2020 were verified.


ItsjustJim621 t1_j86v1ar wrote

False equivalency….buying beer/cigs and flying on a plane are privileges…voting is a constitutional right. If you’re going to make everyone require a voter ID, what solutions do you propose to make a voter ID free and accessible to eligible voters? Anything making someone pay for it is essentially a poll tax.


Finrodsrod t1_j889w74 wrote

He won't answer you lol. Funny enough these same people pushing for polling ID will absolutely lose their minds if you mention gun permits/licenses using drivers licensing as a parallel.


Cogatanu7CC95 t1_j85lkjx wrote

Only voter fraud was committed by republicans, as proven by the numerous cases found


EarthRester t1_j85rfqw wrote

And lets be clear here...they were found. The lack of a Voter ID system did not help anyone get away with voter fraud.


SunOutrageous6098 t1_j85ocyr wrote

Someone needs to prove that there was fraud in the first place. We already have many safeguards in place to ensure it doesn’t happen and they work.

Widespread voter fraud did not happen. There is no effort “to ensure this doesn’t happen again” because the system is designed to ensure is doesn’t happen to begin with.

Source: worked in a county elections office for over a decade.


Timewasted11222 t1_j85pr5h wrote

How do you know ? If they don’t ask for ID or anything else how can you say for sure there was none? I remember when trump won Hillary and every other dem said there was voter fraud . Now that mr mumbles won now everything was good. Please give it a rest


SunOutrageous6098 t1_j85w15x wrote

They do ask for ID. When you register to vote, your ID is verified. Before every election, voter registration is verified against multiple databases and discrepancies are investigated.

Some voters either need to produce ID or complete an affidavit confirming that they are who they say they are and live where they say they live. This information is noted in the Poll Books and the poll workers - who are elected- are responsible for following the instructions in the book. So, if you think they are committing fraud, consider running for Inspector of Elections yourself and doing the job.

When voters apply for an absentee or mail in ballot they have to provide ID. If they don’t, or voter services can’t verify it, their ballot can’t be counted until it’s verified.

There are multiple reports that have to be reconciled before an election can be certified.

The idea of widespread fraud- whether being asserted by Dem, Reps, Greens or Jedi’s - is equally problematic without evidence.


ieatpotatochips t1_j86aq82 wrote

> I remember when trump won Hillary and every other dem said there was voter fraud

Your memory is inaccurate.


Timewasted11222 t1_j87nesl wrote

Funny you have the same mental state as fetterman . It is available to see on the internet


IamSauerKraut t1_j86cdrh wrote

Trump filed over 60 lawsuits alleging fraud.

No evidence of fraud was presented. Indeed, in one federal case in PA, Giuliani stated in open court that he possessed no evidence of fraud. Case got tossed.


IamSauerKraut t1_j86liri wrote

>I remember when trump won Hillary and every other dem said there was voter fraud .

The claims that were made were centered around donnie dumpster fire receiving assistance from russia. Which benedict donald's henchmen attempted to turn into "russian collusion." Anyways, Mueller was investigating those claims until Billy Barr ran interference for the dumpster fire and prematurely shut down the investigation.


yeags86 t1_j87d2bl wrote

I remember Trump claiming voter fraud in 2016 because he didn’t win the popular vote.


Finrodsrod t1_j88a70p wrote

>Hillary and every other dem said there was voter fraud

Clinton conceded the same night... what are you even talking about?

Election interference by Russia ie a manipulation scheme is not the same thing as straight up changing ballots. Russia absolutely influenced a propaganda campaign to get Trump installed. That is fact based on the Muller report. Trumps team worked with Russia.


Diarygirl t1_j88rlv6 wrote

Nope. The only person who cried about voter fraud in 2016.

When Trump started crying about fraud before the election in 2020, didn't it seem familiar to you at all?