Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[Kowani]

you wouldn't need "smart people" what you'd need are gods of silence and discretion (and probably actual divine intervention)

Biden openly admitted to forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor for looking into a company on whose board his son set. The response? Crickets. Manchin completely ignored a union strike that sent thousands of jobs abroad in a scheme where his daughter benefited financially. The response? Crickets. Epstein "killing" himself in jail? Crickets. Jussie Smollet not being jailed after orchestrating a hate crime? Crickets. All you need are those who are unwilling to investigate the victors to be in power, and considering that sometimes the victors appoint their buddies to these positions...

consider maybe that the difference here is the size of the scale of the operation, its symbolic importance, and the obscene number of rabid partisan watchdogs

yeah that's not the claim

Did you not state that the crime was easy to commit? If the crime's easy to commit, then the punishment for getting caught, and the probability of getting caught, are the real deterrents.

if you do not know why "ballot harvesting" is very easy to physically try and near impossible to accomplish i cannot help you

just to be clear here the flipping in particular requires fabricating a total of 42,918 votes spread across 3 separate states (Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin-and this is the absolute bare minimum)

Which would require a change of slightly less than 0.64% in each state.

the percentage is irrelevant it's the raw number that matters

Also, you wouldn't have to target those three if you simply target every swing state, and even the slightly safe states.

...why would you
like this is a tactical disaster
committing more crimes makes it more likely for you to get caught

what a dumb fucking scheme lmao
so this would fail almost instantly at the preparation stage (and continue to collapse at every step beyond that)
so the states that require you to request a mail-in ballot (which you need personal information for) are...alabama, alaska, arkansas, arizona, delaware, florida, georgia, idaho, indiana, kansas, kentucky, louisiana, maine, minnesota, mississippi, missouri, montana, nebraska, new mexico (some counties only), new york, north carolina, north dakota, oklahoma, pennsylvania, south carolina, south dakota, tennessee, texas, virginia, west virginia, and wyoming
so this plan would fail from the outset because you can't get a mail-in ballot for most of these people
then it fails again because because most states don't make voter history available
the ones that do are arizona, colorado, delaware, DC, florida, georgia, iowa, maine, maryland, minnesota, missouri, new hampshire, north carolina, north dakota, ohio, pennsylvania, south dakota, tennessee, vermont, and wisconsin

so let's find the states where you could presumably get someone else's ballotand where you could find the information to not get an active voter
iowa, maryland (and that one was an emergency pandemic measure that doesn't seem to have been extended), ohio, wisconsin
but there's a catch! ohio doesn't let you take a copy home or view it electronically-voter registration files are only available to public inspection at times when the office of the board of elections is open for business. (8:00-17:00, monday through friday)
maryland, meanwhile, requires you to be a registered voter there
so the only states where the research isn't impossible on its own are iowa and wisconsin (which, to be clear, are not enough to flip the 2020 election), which only start sending-out mail-in ballots 28 and 47 days before the election respectively
of course, you gotta actually get the ballots in the first place and that is a fuckton of driving and hoping the person whose identity you are stealing does not get to the mailbox before you do (and unlike them, you gotta do that shit every day, because you don't know when that ballot's getting there)
and good luck with the signatures on ballots by the way lmao i'm not sure how you'd get past that one
like it's hard to establish just how much of a catastrophic failure this would turn out to be
it collapses in on itself at practically level and that's before you start thinking of things like leaks, human error, one of those "inactive voters" deciding that this is the year, anyone getting cold feet, getting caught when the signatures inevitably don't match or the budget
this is election rigging for dumbasses and that's not including the fact that it wouldn't work anyway even if everything went perfectly

Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin are on your "only" list and those are the three states that would've mattered, so thank you for buttressing my point. As far as requesting mail in ballots, not sure if you're aware of this, but ballots can be forged. You don't need to wait to pick up ballots, as those who don't vote usually throw out their ballots. Not sure why you'd try to hunt down ballots when forging's easier, but looks like neither you nor I will be criminal masterminds, which is a good thing.

Anyone who's a registered voter can request a ballot and figure out which items change and which ones stay the same... again, the reason I'm not going into detail is because I don't want to enable it. As far as requesting ballots, names, addresses, emails, birthdays, etc, are ridiculously easy to find online. As for the signature match, not sure if you're aware of this, but you sign your DL, (at least in CA,) hackers exist, and: https://www.govtech.com/security/califo ... -info.html

That's a 38 million record breach. Didn't have signatures, but that's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

this is still amazingly dumb
so first we're hoping those online records are all accurate and up-to-date (for all 42000 people), then we're hoping that the forgeries don't get caught (and ballots tend to have security measures on them-you can read more in detail here, but the anti-forgery features are

Mail ballot packets sent to voters are individualized for each voter and include individualized return envelopes. The ballot envelopes generally include an individualized serial number or bar code as a mechanism to ensure there is only one vote per individual voter. Indeed, most election jurisdictions now use some form of bar code on their ballot envelopes. These bar codes allow election officials to keep track of ballot processing and help voters know whether their ballot has been received. Bar codes also allow states to identify and eliminate duplicate ballots if more than one ballot has been cast in a voter’s name, whether mistakenly or corruptly.
Ballot Tracking: Knowing where a mail ballot is during all steps of its round-trip journey — from an election office to a voter and back to an election office for processing and tabulation — limits the opportunity for a ballot to be diverted from where it should be and to whom it should be sent. There are multiple types of ballot tracking, as well as systems that integrate these underlying tracking devices to provide elections officials and voters with easier access to information about mail ballots. The first mail ballot tracking device is the U.S. Postal Service’s Intelligent Mail Barcode (IMB). Many jurisdictions, including California, Colorado, and Florida, equip their ballot envelopes with intelligent mail bar codes to enable tracking of ballot envelopes through the U.S. mail. footnote20_3huomty47 IMBs are primarily used to track mail ballots on their way from elections offices to voters, though some jurisdictions also use them to track return of completed mail ballots. footnote21_xli0zjs48 More often, a different type of postal code, which slightly modifies the original IMB, is used for return of mail ballots from voters to elections offices. The final ballot tracking device — called “internal bar codes” in this report and referenced above in the entry regarding individualized ballot envelopes — is not a postal bar code but rather allows elections officials to track mail ballots as they make their way through the voting process, from issuance to a voter, to receipt by the elections office, to rejection or acceptance, to tabulation and counting. footnote22_92rlbn449 Most jurisdictions across the country use these internal bar codes as part of election administration.

Two software systems (run by Ballot Scout and BallotTrax), as well as some in-house jurisdiction-specific systems, provide comprehensive tracking services, leveraging the underlying tracking systems described above and providing access to voters. The comprehensive commercial systems track mail ballots from the time they are placed into the mail, to eventual receipt by voters, to return receipt at election offices, until acceptance for counting, even proactively alerting voters of important steps in the process. footnote23_yjg8wsw50 Forty-three states plus the District of Columbia allow voters to track their mail ballots, while another four provide mail ballot tracking for a subset of voters. footnote24_5a4odgy51 Using ballot tracking, if a voter says she or he never received a ballot, an election official can better determine whether the ballot was delivered, replace the ballot as appropriate, and ensure the original is flagged as compromised and not counted. The systems can also let a voter know if, upon receipt of the ballot, there are problems or deficiencies that need correction — also an important trigger to determine if the correct person is returning the ballot.

Identity Verification: The principal method used to detect and prevent individual fraud is the mail ballot envelope itself, which includes personal identifying information. In most states, that information includes a signature that can be used to compare against the voter rolls. In other states, there may be an affidavit, witness, or notary required. footnote25_7n9inm752 Laws requiring an affidavit or signature comparison to verify a voter’s identity — rather than a witness signature or a notarized signature on the mail ballot envelope — are preferable because they reduce opportunities for coercion by necessary third parties. footnote26_fksylef53 Three-quarters of states plus the District of Columbia protect voters in this way. footnote27_k2hdo8w54 When a mail ballot is returned, the signature or personal identifying information is compared against the information stored on the voter rolls. As Kim Wyman, Washington’s Republican secretary of state, explained, “We actually compare every single signature of every single ballot that comes in and we compare it and make sure that it matches the one on their voter registration record.” footnote28_fb87buj55 This is a long-standing and well-established practice to ensure that the ballot received was indeed cast by the correct voter.
Tabulator system design: Ballot scanning (also called tabulating) systems, through which mail ballots are processed upon their return, incorporate features that will detect and/or reject counterfeit ballot forms. footnote29_gmo0drj56
Tabulator vendors issue printer specifications for the paper that must be used for ballots in order for the ballot to be scanned and read correctly by the vendor’s tabulator. Qualities like the paper’s weight, brightness, and opacity, as well as the color and type of ink, are specified. For example, mail ballots are typically pre-printed with a combination of infrared absorbing and infrared reflecting inks that must appear in specific places on a ballot. footnote30_py5wbyp57 Tabulator vendors certify different print shops, which have the printer specifications and can produce ballots correctly, and therefore tabulators only guarantee that ballots produced by those shops will scan correctly. Ballots that do not meet the printer specifications are not guaranteed to scan in the tabulator, and a sufficient number of ballots rejected by the tabulator will raise suspicion. Some tabulator vendors jealously guard printer specifications and therefore only certified print shops have the relevant information to print ballots at all, making ballots even harder to produce fraudulently.

In addition, ballots have “timing” marks, which are hard to reproduce. The specific location of timing marks — down the side of the ballot — allow tabulators to understand how to “read” the ballot. Timing marks are different for each ballot style, and also for each election. The need to reproduce timing marks for a ballot to be counted correctly is another feature that makes fraudulent production of ballots, and the subsequent successful counting of such ballots if cast, difficult.

forging the ballots might actually be a worse move than trying to steal them because of all the safeguards in the way

i mean voter-roll maintenance is good policy in a vacuum but the republicans certainly can't do it and your reason was atrociously bad

So let's implement it, in a vacuum, and let's figure out a neutral way to purge the rolls.

[/quote]
>let's implement it in a vacuum
???
what

[Senkaku]

Biden openly admitted to forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor for looking into a company on whose board his son set. The response? Crickets.

Are you seriously dredging up the Burisma shit again lmao

[Shofercia]

Biden openly admitted to forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor for looking into a company on whose board his son set. The response? Crickets. Manchin completely ignored a union strike that sent thousands of jobs abroad in a scheme where his daughter benefited financially. The response? Crickets. Epstein "killing" himself in jail? Crickets. Jussie Smollet not being jailed after orchestrating a hate crime? Crickets. All you need are those who are unwilling to investigate the victors to be in power, and considering that sometimes the victors appoint their buddies to these positions...

consider maybe that the difference here is the size of the scale of the operation, its symbolic importance, and the obscene number of rabid partisan watchdogs

Rabid partisan watchdogs aren't hard to discredit as rabid partisans. I remember there was a time when people pointing out that COVID-19 might've leaked from Wuhan Lab, something that rabid partisan watchdogs originally claimed, were promptly banned from social media.

Did you not state that the crime was easy to commit? If the crime's easy to commit, then the punishment for getting caught, and the probability of getting caught, are the real deterrents.

if you do not know why "ballot harvesting" is very easy to physically try and near impossible to accomplish i cannot help you

Why is it nearly impossible to accomplish? What's to stop ballot harvesters from only hitting the voters who are registered for their party? 94% of Democrats voted for Biden and 94% of Republicans voted for Trump according to 2020 exit polls. That's over a 9 to 1 correlation, so if you solely focus ballot harvesting on a partisan basis, it gives a boon to your party's candidate, and that's legal. The illegal part is taking votes from the household, figuring out registration, and throwing out votes of the other party.

Which would require a change of slightly less than 0.64% in each state.

the percentage is irrelevant it's the raw number that matters

Also, you wouldn't have to target those three if you simply target every swing state, and even the slightly safe states.

...why would you
like this is a tactical disaster
committing more crimes makes it more likely for you to get caught

The odds of a single partisan pulling it off are near impossible. The odds of a corrupt organization pulling it off are very different. Also, the percentages are relevant, as it's easier to mail in 10 forged ballots out of 10,000 than 10 forged ballots out of 100.

Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin are on your "only" list and those are the three states that would've mattered, so thank you for buttressing my point. As far as requesting mail in ballots, not sure if you're aware of this, but ballots can be forged. You don't need to wait to pick up ballots, as those who don't vote usually throw out their ballots. Not sure why you'd try to hunt down ballots when forging's easier, but looks like neither you nor I will be criminal masterminds, which is a good thing.

Anyone who's a registered voter can request a ballot and figure out which items change and which ones stay the same... again, the reason I'm not going into detail is because I don't want to enable it. As far as requesting ballots, names, addresses, emails, birthdays, etc, are ridiculously easy to find online. As for the signature match, not sure if you're aware of this, but you sign your DL, (at least in CA,) hackers exist, and: https://www.govtech.com/security/califo ... -info.html

That's a 38 million record breach. Didn't have signatures, but that's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

this is still amazingly dumb
so first we're hoping those online records are all accurate and up-to-date (for all 42000 people), then we're hoping that the forgeries don't get caught (and ballots tend to have security measures on them-you can read more in detail here, but the anti-forgery features are

Mail ballot packets sent to voters are individualized for each voter and include individualized return envelopes. The ballot envelopes generally include an individualized serial number or bar code as a mechanism to ensure there is only one vote per individual voter. Indeed, most election jurisdictions now use some form of bar code on their ballot envelopes. These bar codes allow election officials to keep track of ballot processing and help voters know whether their ballot has been received. Bar codes also allow states to identify and eliminate duplicate ballots if more than one ballot has been cast in a voter’s name, whether mistakenly or corruptly.
Ballot Tracking: Knowing where a mail ballot is during all steps of its round-trip journey — from an election office to a voter and back to an election office for processing and tabulation — limits the opportunity for a ballot to be diverted from where it should be and to whom it should be sent. There are multiple types of ballot tracking, as well as systems that integrate these underlying tracking devices to provide elections officials and voters with easier access to information about mail ballots. The first mail ballot tracking device is the U.S. Postal Service’s Intelligent Mail Barcode (IMB). Many jurisdictions, including California, Colorado, and Florida, equip their ballot envelopes with intelligent mail bar codes to enable tracking of ballot envelopes through the U.S. mail. footnote20_3huomty47 IMBs are primarily used to track mail ballots on their way from elections offices to voters, though some jurisdictions also use them to track return of completed mail ballots. footnote21_xli0zjs48 More often, a different type of postal code, which slightly modifies the original IMB, is used for return of mail ballots from voters to elections offices. The final ballot tracking device — called “internal bar codes” in this report and referenced above in the entry regarding individualized ballot envelopes — is not a postal bar code but rather allows elections officials to track mail ballots as they make their way through the voting process, from issuance to a voter, to receipt by the elections office, to rejection or acceptance, to tabulation and counting. footnote22_92rlbn449 Most jurisdictions across the country use these internal bar codes as part of election administration.

Two software systems (run by Ballot Scout and BallotTrax), as well as some in-house jurisdiction-specific systems, provide comprehensive tracking services, leveraging the underlying tracking systems described above and providing access to voters. The comprehensive commercial systems track mail ballots from the time they are placed into the mail, to eventual receipt by voters, to return receipt at election offices, until acceptance for counting, even proactively alerting voters of important steps in the process. footnote23_yjg8wsw50 Forty-three states plus the District of Columbia allow voters to track their mail ballots, while another four provide mail ballot tracking for a subset of voters. footnote24_5a4odgy51 Using ballot tracking, if a voter says she or he never received a ballot, an election official can better determine whether the ballot was delivered, replace the ballot as appropriate, and ensure the original is flagged as compromised and not counted. The systems can also let a voter know if, upon receipt of the ballot, there are problems or deficiencies that need correction — also an important trigger to determine if the correct person is returning the ballot.

Identity Verification: The principal method used to detect and prevent individual fraud is the mail ballot envelope itself, which includes personal identifying information. In most states, that information includes a signature that can be used to compare against the voter rolls. In other states, there may be an affidavit, witness, or notary required. footnote25_7n9inm752 Laws requiring an affidavit or signature comparison to verify a voter’s identity — rather than a witness signature or a notarized signature on the mail ballot envelope — are preferable because they reduce opportunities for coercion by necessary third parties. footnote26_fksylef53 Three-quarters of states plus the District of Columbia protect voters in this way. footnote27_k2hdo8w54 When a mail ballot is returned, the signature or personal identifying information is compared against the information stored on the voter rolls. As Kim Wyman, Washington’s Republican secretary of state, explained, “We actually compare every single signature of every single ballot that comes in and we compare it and make sure that it matches the one on their voter registration record.” footnote28_fb87buj55 This is a long-standing and well-established practice to ensure that the ballot received was indeed cast by the correct voter.
Tabulator system design: Ballot scanning (also called tabulating) systems, through which mail ballots are processed upon their return, incorporate features that will detect and/or reject counterfeit ballot forms. footnote29_gmo0drj56
Tabulator vendors issue printer specifications for the paper that must be used for ballots in order for the ballot to be scanned and read correctly by the vendor’s tabulator. Qualities like the paper’s weight, brightness, and opacity, as well as the color and type of ink, are specified. For example, mail ballots are typically pre-printed with a combination of infrared absorbing and infrared reflecting inks that must appear in specific places on a ballot. footnote30_py5wbyp57 Tabulator vendors certify different print shops, which have the printer specifications and can produce ballots correctly, and therefore tabulators only guarantee that ballots produced by those shops will scan correctly. Ballots that do not meet the printer specifications are not guaranteed to scan in the tabulator, and a sufficient number of ballots rejected by the tabulator will raise suspicion. Some tabulator vendors jealously guard printer specifications and therefore only certified print shops have the relevant information to print ballots at all, making ballots even harder to produce fraudulently.

In addition, ballots have “timing” marks, which are hard to reproduce. The specific location of timing marks — down the side of the ballot — allow tabulators to understand how to “read” the ballot. Timing marks are different for each ballot style, and also for each election. The need to reproduce timing marks for a ballot to be counted correctly is another feature that makes fraudulent production of ballots, and the subsequent successful counting of such ballots if cast, difficult.

forging the ballots might actually be a worse move than trying to steal them because of all the safeguards in the way

Good to know, I stand corrected for said example.

So let's implement it, in a vacuum, and let's figure out a neutral way to purge the rolls.

>let's implement it in a vacuum
???
what

I mean let's figure out a non-partisan way to purge/update the rolls, irrespective of the political pressure facing said policy.

Biden openly admitted to forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor for looking into a company on whose board his son set. The response? Crickets.

Are you seriously dredging up the Burisma shit again lmao

As one example out of many.

[Fahran]

Don't you see a biasing of any criminal justice reform if the people the current system is failing aren't allowed to vote on the reform proposals?

I want the criminal justice system to be biased against people rightly convicted of serious crimes against society and their fellow citizens. That's the entire point of the criminal justice system. The reforms we're discussing should be a good deal more focused, and should emphasize human dignity, broader social disparities, and systemic problems. Someone not getting to vote because they murdered twenty seven people doesn't bother me. I don't consider it a human rights abuse and I don't think society is harmed by serial killers not being able to have a say in public policy discussions via the vote.

And there's a world of difference between "we have to do something about this probable murderer, but we can't be sure, so they're not out in society to murder again" which is a coherent justification, even if New Rogernomics doesn't agree, for jailing someone, and "we have to stop this probable murderer, but we can't be sure, from voting so they [can't vote for legalised murder????]".

Restricting someone's freedom of movement to a significant degree is more extreme and invasive than restricting their right to vote. Again, the basic principle of not taking cues from someone who openly has an extreme disregard for society and their fellow citizens is intrinsically sound. And I refuse to treat convicts as victims of society when they have often done a good deal to victimize society.

The consequences of a probable murderer's not being appropriately detained is measured in lives, but even if they did have the opportunity to vote for legalised murder, the value of a single vote to such a proposal is tiny. A risk assessment argument isn't going to have a coherent relationship between the scale of the denied right and the risk of being wrong for voting, as it is with freedom of movement.

Again, it's the principle of the matter and, if the claim is that felons voting won't have an impact on anything, that doesn't really provide strong justification for granting them the vote since, clearly, nothing worthwhile will change. And, if they can impact things by voting, we don't need to assume they're operating in good faith when their actions, in many cases, suggest that they aren't. There's literally no good argument for giving felons the vote except assuming a priori that all people should automatically have the right to vote regardless of their actions or behaviors.

Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread is about so maybe you've succinctly stated your case, but with the exception of people imprisoned for electoral crimes (if there are any) there is no relationship whatsoever between the crime and the punishment. Even if we're interested in punitive justice, and not everyone is, that seems unsound... cruel, even.

This is probably the least cruel aspect of punitive justice so long as it is confined to serious convicts and former felons. Heck, New Rogernomics was specifically talking about how murderers and rapists should be locked up for life and so this isn't actually a problem. That's not true, but I don't think the concern is about the cruelty of the state here, especially not when we have incarceration. That is, as I stated before, a much bigger imposition on most people's freedom than not letting them vote. It impacts them on a day-to-day basis.

[Forsher]

Don't you see a biasing of any criminal justice reform if the people the current system is failing aren't allowed to vote on the reform proposals?

I want the criminal justice system to be biased against people rightly convicted of serious crimes against society and their fellow citizens. That's the entire point of the criminal justice system. The reforms we're discussing should be a good deal more focused, and should emphasize human dignity, broader social disparities, and systemic problems. Someone not getting to vote because they murdered twenty seven people doesn't bother me. I don't consider it a human rights abuse and I don't think society is harmed by serial killers not being able to have a say in public policy discussions via the vote.

You don't think this has any causal relationship with why criminal justice reforms fail? With recividivism?

And there's a world of difference between "we have to do something about this probable murderer, but we can't be sure, so they're not out in society to murder again" which is a coherent justification, even if New Rogernomics doesn't agree, for jailing someone, and "we have to stop this probable murderer, but we can't be sure, from voting so they [can't vote for legalised murder????]".

Restricting someone's freedom of movement to a significant degree is more extreme and invasive than restricting their right to vote.

And the cost of not doing so is proportionate to it. Is the cost of restricting someone's vote proportionate to the cost of not doing so?

Again, the basic principle of not taking cues from someone who openly has an extreme disregard for society and their fellow citizens is intrinsically sound. And I refuse to treat convicts as victims of society when they have often done a good deal to victimize society.

If someone stole this fuck's car, has society really suffered? I doubt it. Does the law protect people from them? No, not at all. Should it? Of course, but it doesn't.

Or as the song says "I only steal what I can't afford... that's everything".

Society and the rule of law victimise people too.

The consequences of a probable murderer's not being appropriately detained is measured in lives, but even if they did have the opportunity to vote for legalised murder, the value of a single vote to such a proposal is tiny. A risk assessment argument isn't going to have a coherent relationship between the scale of the denied right and the risk of being wrong for voting, as it is with freedom of movement.

Again, it's the principle of the matter and, if the claim is that felons voting won't have an impact on anything, that doesn't really provide strong justification for granting them the vote since, clearly, nothing worthwhile will change. And, if they can impact things by voting, we don't need to assume they're operating in good faith when their actions, in many cases, suggest that they aren't. There's literally no good argument for giving felons the vote except assuming a priori that all people should automatically have the right to vote regardless of their actions or behaviors.

Yes... that's why we give anyone the vote.

Look, I've only seized on this post to have something germane to the voting access conversation this thread is about so maybe you've succinctly stated your case, but with the exception of people imprisoned for electoral crimes (if there are any) there is no relationship whatsoever between the crime and the punishment. Even if we're interested in punitive justice, and not everyone is, that seems unsound... cruel, even.

This is probably the least cruel aspect of punitive justice so long as it is confined to serious convicts and former felons. Heck, New Rogernomics was specifically talking about how murderers and rapists should be locked up for life and so this isn't actually a problem. That's not true, but I don't think the concern is about the cruelty of the state here, especially not when we have incarceration. That is, as I stated before, a much bigger imposition on most people's freedom than not letting them vote. It impacts them on a day-to-day basis.

Their likelihood of being incarcerated is affected by the ability of the incarcerated to vote.

We don't say denying someone the vote (or, more correctly, restricting their ability to exercise their right to vote) as the Texan Republicans want to do is bad because they can individually affect outcomes and now their ability to do so is harmed. We say it's bad because it means they as a collective cease to be a going concern and so get ignored.

By your logic, we should keep prisoners in stocks, and have orderlies spray them with a hose a few times a day to get rid of their piss and shit. If the only object of criminal justice is punishment, they're not punished enough. I rather suspect you don't actually think the only object of criminal justice is punishment, however.

And, no, incarceration isn't necessarily cruel... if it's justified, then it's proportionate.

[Fahran]

You don't think this has any causal relationship with why criminal justice reforms fail? With recividivism?

I think other factors matter a good deal more actually. A significant portion of the problem is that criminal justice reform is a lot more complex than many suppose. Case and point, recividivism isn't necessarily something that can be fixed solely by equiping convicts with educational and career opportunities as a matter of official policy. You have to also address social and cultural factors that contributed to convicts making the decisions they made. If you're embroiled in subcultures that contribute to internalized misandry and gang violence, being educated and having a good job might not be sufficient to lead you away from criminality, incarceration, or death. You're social support network, your friends, and possibly even your family are linked into what caused a significant portion of your problem with regard to chronic criminality and violence. Having the right to vote probably won't matter at all, especially if you haven't begun the process of reforming yourself.

Government can, of course, do a lot to address these social and cultural factors. Addressing poverty and broken families and communities is of paramount importance. But we're supposing that people will automatically vote in substantive ways to promote such policies. We can't actually have too many assurances of that. I think rural voting patterns in places like Appalachia demonstrate that remarkably well at times.

And the cost of not doing so is proportionate to it. Is the cost of restricting someone's vote proportionate to the cost of not doing so?

The cost is not so great in my estimation, personally or socially. That only changes when we begin discussing reformed convicts who may have committed their felonies decades ago and have demonstrated a sincere regard for their communities, and, clearly, such people aren't having their right to movement as severely restricted as someone who has just been convicted of a double homicide.

If someone stole this fuck's car, has society really suffered? I doubt it. Does the law protect people from them? No, not at all. Should it? Of course, but it doesn't.

Depending on the method employed to steal the vehicle, citizens may well be endangered by a criminal's decision to steal said vehicle. It's not dissimilar to someone making the decision to rob a bank with a handgun. Any number of things could go wrong during the course of the heist. A shoot-out could erupt. A finger could slip leading to the death of a banker or teller. A customer might suffer a heart attack due to the stress of the situation. A chase might ensue that leaves a family crippled. As a general rule, criminal activity is not a good or meritorious thing. We shouldn't encourage people to prey on one another. With regard to the guy above, he should probably be given a citation for all that noise pollution.

Society and the rule of law victimise people too.

Of course, they do, but I don't think anyone has made a compelling case that society victimizing people is a good reason for us to simply not punish the worst felons our society produces. Society being broadly imperfect should never, under any circumstances, be employed as an excuse for, say, rapists.

Yes... that's why we give anyone the vote.

I disagree. I think we give the right to vote to citizens assumed to be in good standing in many places, and we're quite generous with the assumptions we make surrounding good standing. Do you think someone who murders their spouse in a fit of jealousy should have the exact same say in the composition of laws regarding murder as yourself? Are y'all both equal in terms of good faith and willingness to abide by the law?

Their likelihood of being incarcerated is affected by the ability of the incarcerated to vote.

That would suggest even more that we should not allow these people to vote.

By your logic, we should keep prisoners in stocks, and have orderlies spray them with a hose a few times a day to get rid of their piss and shit. If the only object of criminal justice is punishment, they're not punished enough. I rather suspect you don't actually think the only object of criminal justice is punishment, however.

I never implied the only object of criminal justice is punishment. That is, of course, one object. That said, punishment isn't really the only or principal reason we should restrict suffrage either. In fact, the main reasons I've given are more about the nature of civic rights and responsibilities. All things considered, I don't think losing the right to vote is that much of a punishment on its own. We certainly wouldn't impose just that on anyone convicted of a serious crime.

And, no, incarceration isn't necessarily cruel... if it's justified, then it's proportionate.

I would say that it remains a markedly unpleasant thing to do to a person even in spite of its proportionate nature. Few people enjoy being restricted in that way, even if conditions are otherwise humane, which, in most places, they aren't.

[Kowani]

consider maybe that the difference here is the size of the scale of the operation, its symbolic importance, and the obscene number of rabid partisan watchdogs

Rabid partisan watchdogs aren't hard to discredit as rabid partisans. I remember there was a time when people pointing out that COVID-19 might've leaked from Wuhan Lab, something that rabid partisan watchdogs originally claimed, were promptly banned from social media.

...what
so there's a major difference here, namely, the courts (i mean there's also a huge media ecosystem to turn to if that fails)
like the reason trump's election fraud claims kept collapsing isn't' 'cause they weren't given a fair shake it was cause they kept admitting in court there wasn't actually any fraud

if you do not know why "ballot harvesting" is very easy to physically try and near impossible to accomplish i cannot help you

Why is it nearly impossible to accomplish? What's to stop ballot harvesters from only hitting the voters who are registered for their party? 94% of Democrats voted for Biden and 94% of Republicans voted for Trump according to 2020 exit polls. That's over a 9 to 1 correlation, so if you solely focus ballot harvesting on a partisan basis, it gives a boon to your party's candidate, and that's legal. The illegal part is taking votes from the household, figuring out registration, and throwing out votes of the other party.

...in most states, "ballot harvesting" is just the act of delivering other people's votes for them-the registration stuff isn't relevant at all

the percentage is irrelevant it's the raw number that matters

...why would you
like this is a tactical disaster
committing more crimes makes it more likely for you to get caught

The odds of a single partisan pulling it off are near impossible. The odds of a corrupt organization pulling it off are very different. Also, the percentages are relevant, as it's easier to mail in 10 forged ballots out of 10,000 than 10 forged ballots out of 100.

okay so firstly no it's still 10 forged ballots-like they don't do random checks for integrity-the security measures aren't activated at random chance
secondly...large, corrupt organizations aren't going to be any better because now you're dealing with a fuckton of fallible people and all you need is one guy to slip up for the whole thing to come falling down

So let's implement it, in a vacuum, and let's figure out a neutral way to purge the rolls.

>let's implement it in a vacuum
???
what

I mean let's figure out a non-partisan way to purge/update the rolls, irrespective of the political pressure facing said policy.
[/quote]
what would a "non-partisan" way look like
like you can't make names or residential addresses available to the people purging the rolls just off the top of my head

[Myrensis]

you wouldn't need "smart people" what you'd need are gods of silence and discretion (and probably actual divine intervention)

Biden openly admitted to forcing Ukraine to fire its anti-corruption prosecutor for looking into a company on whose board his son set. The response? Crickets. Manchin completely ignored a union strike that sent thousands of jobs abroad in a scheme where his daughter benefited financially. The response? Crickets. Epstein "killing" himself in jail? Crickets. Jussie Smollet not being jailed after orchestrating a hate crime? Crickets. All you need are those who are unwilling to investigate the victors to be in power, and considering that sometimes the victors appoint their buddies to these positions...

In other words you have zero evidence of any significant widespread attempts at illegal ballot harvesting, much less any successful ones, so are reduced to feeble deflection to conspiracy theories and fabrications and outright nonsense... all coincidentally aimed at maligning Democrats. Careful bud, your paper thin mask is slipping.

just to be clear here the flipping in particular requires fabricating a total of 42,918 votes spread across 3 separate states (Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin-and this is the absolute bare minimum)

Which would require a change of slightly less than 0.64% in each state. Also, you wouldn't have to target those three if you simply target every swing state, and even the slightly safe states.

Your dishonest clinging to percentages notwithstanding, you're still talking about a multi-state conspiracy to fabricate 10's of thousands of votes at a minimum, a conspiracy that must ensure that all of those ballots get past all of the various security measures in multiple states, and that also has to prevent anyone involved in the conspiracy at any point at any level from breathing a word about it or making a mistake or getting caught.

Clearly a far more plausible and logical explanation than the insane suggestion that the right's decades of consistent failure to produce any evidence of 'rampant voter fraud' to explain their election losses is because it doesn't actually happen.

[New Rogernomics]

[...]Additionally, while some people have been wrongly convicted, largely due to poverty and systemic problems, we should not operate under the assumption that people convicted of serious felonies are all wrongly convicted. In point of fact, most of them aren't.

Still not getting what I am getting at here, if someone is released, even assuming they are guilty, if they are adequately reformed they shouldn't have to surrender their voting rights. The US system is built on a financial basis for the return of voting rights, where restrictions on returning the vote exist, meaning you have to pay a set amount to gain them back in many states. So it is about poverty, and income, as any low-income person is penalized on basis of their income-level. It is one thing of the US justice system I really hate, as I don't think bail or any release conditions should have any monetary get of out of consequences card, but instead be based on their risk to the public/flight, and their level of rehabilitation. Until that changes, even assuming the system wasn't structurally unfair i.e. everyone had the money, a blanket ban on voting rights would be grossly unfair on criminals who are reformed, and haven't recommitted any offense.

That's not really relevant to the operating assumption that we have to rely on to function as a society, namely that most people who get convicted of serious crimes were in fact guilty of those crimes. If we throw that assumption out the window, we become functionally incapable of engaging in justice. We should treat issues of wrongful convictions as exceptions rather than as the rule, and, in point of fact, we pretty much already do that..

That operating assumption isn't always true though, and it isn't even true necessary for those convicted and entirely guilty, as the level of rehabilitation varies between the criminal released, as does their chance of re-offending. It is not very probable for someone guilty of a truly serious crime i.e. like serial killing, to leave prison. It is possible for someone who has committed a single murder, manslaughter, and such, or got a light plea deal due to the police not having enough on someone. But even that is extremely unlikely. That leaves criminals that have been convicted of rape, which are criminals that can be rehabilitated, though not all of them obviously. If they have left prison, we can reasonably expect they have been rehabilitated enough to re-join society, if they haven't, then reoffending will eventually have them put away for good. Under the US system, "beyond reasonable doubt" and severity of what happened, is part of it, a decent judge isn't going to brand every criminal or the crime they have committed as exactly the same, and will give some criminals greater sentences than others based on available evidence or the severity of the crime i.e. did someone murder someone with a quick bullet to the head vs mutilate them. So I am pointing out that the actual release rate is relatively low vs the prison population, if you are talking about serious crimes. If the concern is that they are a threat to society, then it would make more sense for that determination to be made by a judge familiar with the case, and not by a blanket ban or according to your net worth - which is what happens in jurisdictions where ending of your sentence doesn't grant you to the right to vote, and financial obligations are the only barrier. I'd argue the later is economically regressive, and gives an easy exit to the richest of society.

You usually get voting rights stripped for committing felonies. Felonies can include murder, aggravated assault or aggravated battery, abuse of a child, burglary, battery on a law enforcement officer or firefighter, possession of a controlled substance (other than marijuana), kidnapping, grand theft, stalking, incest, carjacking, resisting an officer with violence, sex crimes, drug trafficking, robbery, and carrying a concealed weapon. Some of those absolutely shouldn't be crimes and some shouldn't be felonies. That said, the majority of these absolutely warrant you losing your freedom and your right to vote. It's not simply a matter of people living in poverty. Lots of people manage to live in poverty and not murder someone or abuse a child. These aren't super high moral bars that black people are intrinsically incapable of reaching. They're the bare minimum for living in a functional society.

All those criminals are accountable to the process of rehabilitation, and level of risk to society. Removing the right to vote from someone successfully rehabilitated, and not offending, is not the bare minimum required for a functional society, and as I've said before the release rate is too low for serious crimes to warrant every criminal being tarred with the same brush vis-a-vis their right to vote. I'd argue if they are out, and are able to re-offend, the system has either failed in their rehabilitation or not properly taken their risk to society or risk to re-offending into account, in which case they'll lose their right to vote again, perhaps for good. Re-gaining the right to vote is dependent on not re-offending, so I don't see the issue, if there is to be a structural change then a judge should decide whether someone regains their right to vote and the financial barrier should be removed.

Again, while there's a conversation to be had about how the criminal justice system is structured against the impoverished, black and Latino people, and men, we can have that conversation without insinuating that banning serious felons from voting is somehow predicated on banning black people from voting. In point of fact, Florida is actually one of the more moderate states on the issue. And, even in Florida, we're talking about a number of voters in the tens of thousands who become eligible when we reinstitute the right to vote for felons. I'm not especially keen on that right being contingent on fines or fees, as it is in Florida, though since that resembles a poll tax and rather betrays my entire point in arguing that, maybe, serious felons shouldn't be trusted 100% to uphold the public welfare.

It isn't an insinuation, but a historical fact, with the writer of the law being a white supremacist, bragging about how much it would help stop African Americans voting: https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/polit ... -506351724

Florida's law was deliberately designed to prevent African Americans from voting, which is why it cannot be ignored in the US at least that a lot of these restrictions were structured on racial and social-economic lines. In another nation this line of reasoning wouldn't be as sound, as not every nation in the world established segregation of the races as policy, nor deliberately created laws to prevent a specific race from voting. Even under the assumption that released felons do not deserve the right to vote, if the judicial system is not making that determination, and instead it is a state legislature in state that has historically been discriminatory, it is going to be near impossible to ignore the structural injustice of such a restriction - nor for any ethnic or racial group that happens to make up most of the prison population to ignore the political convenience of such a restriction.

Ideally, we would confine restrictions to the vote to violent felonies and serious drug infractions - namely intent to distribute narcotics, opioids, etc. Criminality is largely class-based in ALL societies. I don't think that itself presents a good argument for not removing bad citizens from voter rolls, at least temporarily. As I mentioned, it's not a bad faith assumption to operate with the belief that the Ted Bundys of the world have nothing worthwhile to say about public policy. And we should keep in mind that a lot of the criminals we're discussing have tended to victimize people who in most respects resemble themselves. White criminals tend to prey on white people. Black criminals tend to prey on black people. Latino criminals tend to prey on Latino people.

I still think that the determination on the rights of a criminal belong in the justice system itself, and for determinations on citizens rights to be ultimately answerable to state and federal courts, as well as necessary the US Constitution. It isn't a myth that in the US at least that voting rights restrictions have been historically-grounded on racial or social economic grounds, and "bad citizens" should be determined on basis of their actual probability of reoffending, the extent of their rehabilitation, and whether they pose a threat to society, and not because they were "bad citizens", which is never going to be consistent, as some criminals are truly going to be bad people forever whereas others are successfully rehabilitated, don't reoffend, and become part of society again. Denying the voting rights of those people doesn't sit right with me, which is exactly what happens when you prevent all released felons from voting, regardless of who they are and what they become when they are released.

[Gim]

USA has committed suicide as a nation. Every single person not corrupted knows what happened in the election 2020 and these guys, in their complete hatred for Trump, got help from China and Iran and are yet to realize the irreversible damage they did to this country just to dislodge him. I mean, cant you lot have waited for 4 more years? Media, even the army and many institutions belongs to you. Republicans do not really control anything.

Within a few years, we will see the tyranny of China in full scale and USA would be weak to stop any of it. Even now Democrats are playing idiotic games. Ah well, when the barbarians invaded the land of Zoroastrians, the first to be beheaded were the priestly class who betrayed the Zoroastrian king.

We will all witness the outcome of USA within the few years. Such a tragedy.

Trump did himself in for mismanaging a pandemic.

Even his secretary, Bolton, criticized his COVID-19 policy. I'm glad Biden has stepped in to resolve this issue.

[Shazbotdom]

USA has committed suicide as a nation. Every single person not corrupted knows what happened in the election 2020 and these guys, in their complete hatred for Trump, got help from China and Iran and are yet to realize the irreversible damage they did to this country just to dislodge him. I mean, cant you lot have waited for 4 more years? Media, even the army and many institutions belongs to you. Republicans do not really control anything.

Within a few years, we will see the tyranny of China in full scale and USA would be weak to stop any of it. Even now Democrats are playing idiotic games. Ah well, when the barbarians invaded the land of Zoroastrians, the first to be beheaded were the priestly class who betrayed the Zoroastrian king.

We will all witness the outcome of USA within the few years. Such a tragedy.

Ohhhh......

You're one of "those" people who thinks that there is a vast conspiracy that "stole" the election from Donald Trump. I bet you even think that Georgia had more votes than people actually living in the State of Georgia, don't you?

[New Rogernomics]

[...]You're one of "those" people who thinks that there is a vast conspiracy that "stole" the election from Donald Trump. I bet you even think that Georgia had more votes than people actually living in the State of Georgia, don't you?

The election was "stolen" bunch, seem to believe they are a oppressed majority, rather than a political minority that shouts loudly¹. They can't concede that they lost the suburbs and much of America to a mild-mannered old white guy, who isn't harming or bothering anyone, except Trump supporters, so they've come to the conclusion it was "rigged".

I didn't follow the #NotMyPresident bandwagon with Trump, but he ended up being a poor President and most of America agreed, so he is out. If Covid hadn't have happened, I think that Trump may well have got another term, as folks were prepared to give him a pass on so much stuff due to the economy doing okay, until he was proven bad at managing Covid and Americans got sick of his rhetorical attacks. Trump fatigue you might say.

Their response to "winning us back" is branding the center their political enemies for not staying loyal to him or "stopping the steal", so if Trump runs again in 2024, I am sure that will go great. *sarcasm intensifies*
_{1. Which the more politically extreme left falls into as well, though they aren't saying the election was rigged.}

[Kowani]

solidarity comes in turn

Lawmakers from at least 20 different states will take part in a “week of action” in favor of federal voting rights bills, beginning with a rally in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

Throughout the week, these state legislators will meet with federal senators and push them to forego an August recess in order to pass those bills.

“We came to Washington, D.C. to demand action and draw the nation’s eyes to the fight for the freedom to vote,” Texas state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said. “Now, we are heartened to welcome over 100 state legislators from across the country to share their stories and call on Congress to save our country by passing the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.” Texas state Democratic lawmakers, attempting to stop Republicans from passing restrictive rules on voting rights in the state, prevented a quorum in their state legislature (and thus preventing the bill from getting passed) by fleeing to Washington, D.C., early last month.

Many of the state lawmakers coming to Washington this week are also from states that are planning to pass or have already passed restrictive voting rights laws of their own. According to the Brennan Law Center, 18 states have passed 30 such laws in the past year alone.

[Kowani]

a second special session has now begun, and the democrats are still not in texas

[Heltron]

Doesn’t this violate the constitution or the bill of rights? Can’t Biden step in to enforce some order and show these traitors what it means to be American.

[Galloism]

Doesn’t this violate the constitution or the bill of rights? Can’t Biden step in to enforce some order and show these traitors what it means to be American.

No. Long tradition of nuking quorum in our nation's history.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln used this tactic at least twice.

[Gravlen]

Are you seriously dredging up the Burisma shit again lmao

As one example out of many.

About the many other examples...

Epstein "killing" himself in jail? Crickets.

Department of Justice inspector general conducts an investigation.

Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings.

FBI investigates as well.

Two guards indicted, and, facing criminal prosecution for neglecting their duties, enter into an agreement with prosecutors which includes them having to cooperate with the federal investigation into Epstein's death.

Jussie Smollet not being jailed after orchestrating a hate crime? Crickets.

FBI investigation into why charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped.

Special prosecutor assigned to review Jussie Smollett's case and the events leading to the charges being dropped, which leads to a Grand Jury indictment for six felony counts of disorderly conduct stemming from four separate false reports that he gave to police.

How can you even hear the crickets?

[Heltron]

Doesn’t this violate the constitution or the bill of rights? Can’t Biden step in to enforce some order and show these traitors what it means to be American.

No. Long tradition of nuking quorum in our nation's history.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln used this tactic at least twice.

Piss off with that this is not the same as the civil war. This is a political party operating to keep its power by stepping on peoples right to vote.

[Thermodolia]

No. Long tradition of nuking quorum in our nation's history.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln used this tactic at least twice.

Piss off with that this is not the same as the civil war. This is a political party operating to keep its power by stepping on peoples right to vote.

I think he thought you where referring to the democrats and not the republicans. Either way no there’s nothing Biden can do short of starting a civil war.

[Alistan Democratic Nation]

I shall contradict my signature just this once. I will do so just to say "Oh god, this is the filibuster debate all over again."

[Kannap]

No. Long tradition of nuking quorum in our nation's history.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln used this tactic at least twice.

Piss off with that this is not the same as the civil war. This is a political party operating to keep its power by stepping on peoples right to vote.

Nobody's comparing this to the civil war. Lincoln jumped from a window to try to prevent quorum while serving as a member of the Illinois house of representatives in 1840, the vote was on shuttering a state-run bank.

Long before he was president, Lincoln served in the Illinois House of Representatives as a fiercely partisan Whig, and once jumped out a first-floor window to try to stop a vote.

Lincoln’s leap came at the end of a legislative session, when he and his fellow Whigs were trying to buy time to save a state-run bank from being shut down. Democrats, who controlled the chamber, were not fans of the bank, and scheduled a vote to adjourn that would seal the bank’s fate. Lincoln, who had emerged as a leader in the Whig Party, came up with a last-ditch plan to open a window and jump out to deny the Democrats a quorum.

“He was just coming into his own at that point” as a politician, said Wayne Temple, a Lincoln historian who described the hasty exit in one of his books on the president.

Lincoln’s jump turned out to be futile. He had already been marked present for the quorum, according to Samuel Wheeler, the state historian of Illinois, so the session ended despite his objections.

“It’s not an episode that he’s very proud of later,” Dr. Wheeler said.

[Heltron]

Piss off with that this is not the same as the civil war. This is a political party operating to keep its power by stepping on peoples right to vote.

Nobody's comparing this to the civil war. Lincoln jumped from a window to try to prevent quorum while serving as a member of the Illinois house of representatives in 1840, the vote was on shuttering a state-run bank.

Long before he was president, Lincoln served in the Illinois House of Representatives as a fiercely partisan Whig, and once jumped out a first-floor window to try to stop a vote.

Lincoln’s leap came at the end of a legislative session, when he and his fellow Whigs were trying to buy time to save a state-run bank from being shut down. Democrats, who controlled the chamber, were not fans of the bank, and scheduled a vote to adjourn that would seal the bank’s fate. Lincoln, who had emerged as a leader in the Whig Party, came up with a last-ditch plan to open a window and jump out to deny the Democrats a quorum.

“He was just coming into his own at that point” as a politician, said Wayne Temple, a Lincoln historian who described the hasty exit in one of his books on the president.

Lincoln’s jump turned out to be futile. He had already been marked present for the quorum, according to Samuel Wheeler, the state historian of Illinois, so the session ended despite his objections.

“It’s not an episode that he’s very proud of later,” Dr. Wheeler said.

Ah I’m a fool. I’m sorry I jumped the gun. Thought you meant linking suspension of voting and other martial law acts and somehow I connected that to the special session in Texas. That’s all on me and again I apologize.

[Heltron]

Piss off with that this is not the same as the civil war. This is a political party operating to keep its power by stepping on peoples right to vote.

I think he thought you where referring to the democrats and not the republicans. Either way no there’s nothing Biden can do short of starting a civil war.

There must be something. God knows that must be some federal aid he can cut or some pressure he can exert short of civil war.

[Forsher]

Nobody's comparing this to the civil war. Lincoln jumped from a window to try to prevent quorum while serving as a member of the Illinois house of representatives in 1840, the vote was on shuttering a state-run bank.

Long before he was president, Lincoln served in the Illinois House of Representatives as a fiercely partisan Whig, and once jumped out a first-floor window to try to stop a vote.

Lincoln’s leap came at the end of a legislative session, when he and his fellow Whigs were trying to buy time to save a state-run bank from being shut down. Democrats, who controlled the chamber, were not fans of the bank, and scheduled a vote to adjourn that would seal the bank’s fate. Lincoln, who had emerged as a leader in the Whig Party, came up with a last-ditch plan to open a window and jump out to deny the Democrats a quorum.

“He was just coming into his own at that point” as a politician, said Wayne Temple, a Lincoln historian who described the hasty exit in one of his books on the president.

Lincoln’s jump turned out to be futile. He had already been marked present for the quorum, according to Samuel Wheeler, the state historian of Illinois, so the session ended despite his objections.

“It’s not an episode that he’s very proud of later,” Dr. Wheeler said.

Ah I’m a fool. I’m sorry I jumped the gun. Thought you meant linking suspension of voting and other martial law acts and somehow I connected that to the special session in Texas. That’s all on me and again I apologize.

There are people in this thread that literally want the state to arrest lawmakers. Or, you know, one of the major flashpoints from the English Civil War.

[Heltron]

Ah I’m a fool. I’m sorry I jumped the gun. Thought you meant linking suspension of voting and other martial law acts and somehow I connected that to the special session in Texas. That’s all on me and again I apologize.

There are people in this thread that literally want the state to arrest lawmakers. Or, you know, one of the major flashpoints from the English Civil War.

I’m not surprised. Lost causers and such don’t understand what a civil war would mean and how fast it would turn bad for themselves overall. Not to mention that the majority of the people aren’t secessionist traitors fantasizing about the end of America. Frankly these people, the lost causers need to be made an example somehow. Humiliated or in some way socially crippled so as to not be a threat. Not killed of course but something.