Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (17 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Pete]

How wishy washy.

We agree on the universal suffrage part. I just happen to be in the majority of people who believe that ID laws are a reasonable requirement to vote as ID requirements is normal for many ordinary things.

With rights, come responsibility and if you don’t have any form of ID, that’s a red flag, frankly. It’s not an unreasonable request, as it’s an everyday requirement for a lot of things.

The number that is actually important is not 4% of the population who don’t have ID as this is a ‘theoretical’ impact. The impact of the law is 0.25% of voters were turned away at the ballot box.

You’re right that’s only 500,000 so doesn’t really matter

 

---

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The difference between voter suppression and not getting a pint is that if you stop 0.5% of people from getting a pint you can’t change the outcome of some elections.

The fix is simple, get the ID you require to vote if you care that much.

I didn’t vote in the 2016 referendum because I missed deadlines for vote by proxy and mail voting. The election just gone, I voted by a proxy. My nominated proxy was contact for ID and so on, these are reasonable steps to make. Frankly, it’s a lot more hassle than producing an ID. The takeaway here is: be organised.

The government / electoral commission should do what it can to promote the voter ID to ensure people aren’t being excluded. In the end analysis, it’s not voter suppression.

Side note: we really need to stop having votes during the Euros.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You’re right that’s only 500,000 so doesn’t really matter

14,000 we’re actually turned away from the ballot box. So at best, 2.8% of that group were ‘suppressed’ and presumes that the 14,000 and 500,000 are a 1:1 relationship. That is, have no ID and refused a ballot at the polling station.

In any case, there’s a new ID form which takes 2 minutes to fill out. I’m not going to cry over people not being arsed to go over these simple processes.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

14,000 we’re actually turned away from the ballot box. So at best, 2.8% of that group were ‘suppressed’ and presumes that the 14,000 and 500,000 are a 1:1 relationship. That is, have no ID and refused a ballot at the polling station.

In any case, there’s a new ID form which takes 2 minutes to fill out. I’m not going to cry over people not being arsed to go over these simple processes.

Ah sorry thought you were referring to usa
In the uk Rees mogg admitted it was a political ploy

 

[SBT]

14,000 we’re actually turned away from the ballot box. So at best, 2.8% of that group were ‘suppressed’ and presumes that the 14,000 and 500,000 are a 1:1 relationship. That is, have no ID and refused a ballot at the polling station.

In any case, there’s a new ID form which takes 2 minutes to fill out. I’m not going to cry over people not being arsed to go over these simple processes.

And how many illegal votes are typically cast in a UK general election? Feel free to use the most outlandish number you can find.

We’ve gone from “Voter ID doesn’t have an impact” to “There’s no data to show it affects the people you say it does” to “I don’t care about the people shown to be affected by the data”

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The fix is simple, get the ID you require to vote if you care that much.

I didn’t vote in the 2016 referendum because I missed deadlines for vote by proxy and mail voting. The election just gone, I voted by a proxy. My nominated proxy was contact for ID and so on, these are reasonable steps to make. Frankly, it’s a lot more hassle than producing an ID. The takeaway here is: be organised.

The government / electoral commission should do what it can to promote the voter ID to ensure people aren’t being excluded. In the end analysis, it’s not voter suppression.

Side note: we really need to stop having votes during the Euros.

Given that we want to encourage rather than discourage more people to vote, why are we putting more obstacles in the way? People should be automatically registered when they turn 18. Surely no disagreement there?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Given that we want to encourage rather than discourage more people to vote, why are we putting more obstacles in the way? People should be automatically registered when they turn 18. Surely no disagreement there?

That I don’t disagree with, similar to how everyone gets their NI card when they turn 16 or 17 (whenever it was).

Equally, I don’t see why people who have none of the 22 acceptable forms of ID can’t take the 2m to do the online application.

We all accept that if someone wants to learn how to drive, they need to apply for a provisional license and pass tests to drive a car. I’ve not seen anyone talk about how this is racist/classist and I assume more of the electorate drive a car than go out to vote.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That I don’t disagree with, similar to how everyone gets their NI card when they turn 16 or 17 (whenever it was).

Equally, I don’t see why people who have none of the 22 acceptable forms of ID can’t take the 2m to do the online application.

We all accept that if someone wants to learn how to drive, they need to apply for a provisional license and pass tests to drive a car. I’ve not seen anyone talk about how this is racist/classist and I assume more of the electorate drive a car than go out to vote.

Driving licenses are there in the interests of public safety as some evidence that it’s safe for someone to drive. There is no capability test you need to pass to be able to vote, it’s a right you have automatically granted.

Jacob Rees-Mogg openly admitted why they passed the laws they did. Why for example would an elderly person’s bus pass be acceptable ID, but not a younger person’s? They assume that older people will probably vote Tory.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Driving licenses are there in the interests of public safety as some evidence that it’s safe for someone to drive. There is no capability test you need to pass to be able to vote, it’s a right you have automatically granted.

Jacob Rees-Mogg openly admitted why they passed the laws they did. Why for example would an elderly person’s bus pass be acceptable ID, but not a younger person’s? They assume that older people will probably vote Tory.

It’s politics, there always is some element in self-interest in changes like this and boundary changes. To take your example, younger people would more likely to have (at least) a provisional driving license versus an elderly person.

It didn’t themselves any good and younger people (particularly males) are swinging to the right, not the left. The narrative around voter suppression and what is are miles apart

In any case, the change is popular and backed by most people because it’s inherently a sensible idea. You need ID to buy energy drinks for crying out loud!

To wrap this up and offer a fig leaf, your idea of auto-enrolling people to the voter ID is inherently a sound one.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It’s politics, there always is some element in self-interest in changes like this and boundary changes. To take your example, younger people would more likely to have (at least) a provisional driving license versus an elderly person.

It didn’t themselves any good and younger people (particularly males) are swinging to the right, not the left. The narrative around voter suppression and what is are miles apart

In any case, the change is popular and backed by most people because it’s inherently a sensible idea. You need ID to buy energy drinks for crying out loud!

To wrap this up and offer a fig leaf, your idea of auto-enrolling people to the voter ID is inherently a sound one.

Think you should stick to the football threads my friend

 

[MalcSB]

Voter ID laws seek to tackle a problem that does not exist. The reason why, especially in US contexts, is to reduce turnout from traditionally left leaning voter blocs.

Yawn.

 

[MalcSB]

I think the right to vote is slightly more universal than the right to drive.

What percentage of the people who were turned away for not having the correct ID do you think were genuinely attempting to commit voter fraud?

100%

 

[SBT]

100%

Even though 2/3 of them subsequently returned with the correct ID?

 

[MalcSB]

Given that we want to encourage rather than discourage more people to vote, why are we putting more obstacles in the way? People should be automatically registered when they turn 18. Surely no disagreement there?

How would automatic registration work? Where would they be registered to vote?

Getting ID really isn't difficult.

 

[MalcSB]

Even though 2/3 of them subsequently returned with the correct ID?

TBH I was just being bolshy. So 33.33% then.

Why didn't they take the correct ID in the first place then. They weren’t being denied a vote, their own stupidity did that.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Think you should stick to the football threads my friend

That universally applies to everyone on this darker side of the forum…

 

[skybluetony176]

Why didn't they take the correct ID

Ask Boris.

 

[Skybluekyle]

The alcohol laws are racist.
The smoking laws are racist.
Having a bank account is racist.
Needing ID to buy paracetamol is racism and anything that requires ID is basically Nazi.

It’s a “Call anyone you disagree with a racist” game and it no longer works.

The follow up “tiny brain” comment is also a dead giveaway.

“Struggling immigrants” can’t get ID to vote. Why is that? Should be easy, get a green card or prove refugee status, get ID. Pay into the system instead of working undocumented / without tax.

“No taxation without representation”.
Anyone without a “tiny brain” will understand that and can deduce:

“no representation without the right to apply taxation”

If you follow the above then no further explanation is necessary. If you can’t understand that then no further explanation is possible.

Paddling the school canoe, oh you better believe that's racist

 

[shmmeee]

The fix is simple, get the ID you require to vote if you care that much.

I didn’t vote in the 2016 referendum because I missed deadlines for vote by proxy and mail voting. The election just gone, I voted by a proxy. My nominated proxy was contact for ID and so on, these are reasonable steps to make. Frankly, it’s a lot more hassle than producing an ID. The takeaway here is: be organised.

The government / electoral commission should do what it can to promote the voter ID to ensure people aren’t being excluded. In the end analysis, it’s not voter suppression.

Side note: we really need to stop having votes during the Euros.

It is voter suppression. Whether it’s effective or not that’s its intended purpose. It’s never raised by people who won’t benefit electorally from it. Same as lowering the voting age isn’t.

You keep talking about what’s possible and what you can do and that’s lovely, but in the real world we have the data to know the impacts of adding friction to a process.

 

[chiefdave]

Why for example would an elderly person’s bus pass be acceptable ID, but not a younger person’s? They assume that older people will probably vote Tory.

Was it NHS photo ID that wasn't accepted as valid to vote?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

How would automatic registration work? Where would they be registered to vote?

Getting ID really isn't difficult.

Some American states already do it

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That universally applies to everyone on this darker side of the forum…

Certainly does. Interesting to see @Como never strays from here anyway.

 

[MalcSB]

Some American states already do it

Not much help in the UK though.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Not much help in the UK though.

You asked how it might work, we have some real examples already.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

No, trust in the democratic process is so low in the USA, it’s clearly a problem. Not only did Trump claim the 2020 election was ‘stolen’, you had the Democrats call the legitimacy of the 2016 election into question too. Both parties are at it.

I’m a bit more relaxed about voter ID in the UK, it’s easy to see why there’s low trust in US system. Perhaps the idea that election day should be a national holiday, paper ballots-only with voter-ID is a fundamentally sensible way to conduct efficient elections with no questions over their legitimacy and integrity.



The Electoral Commission reported that only 0.25% of people who showed up to the polls were turned away due to voter ID laws.

If people really want to vote, there’s something like 22 forms of acceptable ID. In short, it’s a theoretical impact. Sure, there’s 4% of the electorate who won’t have photo ID, how likely are they to go out and vote? Probably not and again, if they really wanted to, there’s a specific election-ID card out there that the Electoral Commission reported had 57% awareness among those polled.

As a basic principle, why wouldn’t we want to ensure people voting are who say they are?

Well if 0.25% of those that showed up to the polls were turned away then that's going to be somewhere in the region of 50k voters denied a right to vote. Do you think there were 50k fraudulent votes prevented to offset that?

And also that's of the people who showed up. How many didn't even bother going to a polling station because they had no ID?

While I don't inherently disagree with having to prove who you are to vote, surely you have to accept that this is a bad way to go about it because its preventing more people voting than it's preventing voting fraudulently. Surely that is the acid test?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Well if 0.25% of those that showed up to the polls were turned away then that's going to be somewhere in the region of 50k voters denied a right to vote. Do you think there were 50k fraudulent votes prevented to offset that?

And also that's of the people who showed up. How many didn't even bother going to a polling station because they had no ID?

While I don't inherently disagree with having to prove who you are to vote, surely you have to accept that this is a bad way to go about it because its preventing more people voting than it's preventing voting fraudulently. Surely that is the acid test?

Well if 0.25% of those that showed up to the polls were turned away then that's going to be somewhere in the region of 50k voters denied a right to vote. Do you think there were 50k fraudulent votes prevented to offset that?

And also that's of the people who showed up. How many didn't even bother going to a polling station because they had no ID?

While I don't inherently disagree with having to prove who you are to vote, surely you have to accept that this is a bad way to go about it because its preventing more people voting than it's preventing voting fraudulently. Surely that is the acid test?

Democratic processes only work when both sides agree on the outcome, i.e. a winner and loser. Both sides in this election raised concerns about voter fraud in this year’s US election, then the previous questioning of the results in 2016 and 2020. With the USA, you have 50 states doing more or less their own thing in overseeing results (simplified view). The UK is much more uniform with our GE results.

Your point on this 50k suppression assumes a 1:1 ratio, which isn’t the case because someone mentioned that most people who were turned away came back with valid ID. There’s been 2-3 elections now since the changes and people should be aware of the

Final point, I just agree with voter ID from a philosophical perspective, like most people in this country. I’m not too fussed about the precise numbers about fraud and the data isn’t really reliable because how do measure that exactly? For example, a mate of mine used his and his dad’s mail ballots to vote twice. That’s low level fraud that would go undetected.

Anyway, the ‘argument’ is around voter suppression and these fears about widespread voter suppression are overblown, frankly.

 

[SBAndy]

Democratic processes only work when both sides agree on the outcome, i.e. a winner and loser. Both sides in this election raised concerns about voter fraud in this year’s US election, then the previous questioning of the results in 2016 and 2020. With the USA, you have 50 states doing more or less their own thing in overseeing results (simplified view). The UK is much more uniform with our GE results.

Your point on this 50k suppression assumes a 1:1 ratio, which isn’t the case because someone mentioned that most people who were turned away came back with valid ID. There’s been 2-3 elections now since the changes and people should be aware of the

Final point, I just agree with voter ID from a philosophical perspective, like most people in this country. I’m not too fussed about the precise numbers about fraud and the data isn’t really reliable because how do measure that exactly? For example, a mate of mine used his and his dad’s mail ballots to vote twice. That’s low level fraud that would go undetected.

Anyway, the ‘argument’ is around voter suppression and these fears about widespread voter suppression are overblown, frankly.

You keep saying the result in the US was disputed in 2016 - any evidence of this?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Democratic processes only work when both sides agree on the outcome, i.e. a winner and loser. Both sides in this election raised concerns about voter fraud in this year’s US election, then the previous questioning of the results in 2016 and 2020. With the USA, you have 50 states doing more or less their own thing in overseeing results (simplified view). The UK is much more uniform with our GE results.

Your point on this 50k suppression assumes a 1:1 ratio, which isn’t the case because someone mentioned that most people who were turned away came back with valid ID. There’s been 2-3 elections now since the changes and people should be aware of the

Final point, I just agree with voter ID from a philosophical perspective, like most people in this country. I’m not too fussed about the precise numbers about fraud and the data isn’t really reliable because how do measure that exactly? For example, a mate of mine used his and his dad’s mail ballots to vote twice. That’s low level fraud that would go undetected.

Anyway, the ‘argument’ is around voter suppression and these fears about widespread voter suppression are overblown, frankly.

In 2020 the only fraudster was Trump.

 

[The Philosopher]

Ok.

Some nuance:

2000 Gore V Bush. The race was so close it came down to one state, Florida. Bush was declared winner eventually by about 500 votes and crucially, Gore conceded. In the post-analysis, there were about 600 late / unsigned / incorrect ballots that were for Bush that should have been discounted PLUS about 2000 votes were flipped away from Gore by a machine error.*(see butterfly ballot case - printing machine error / layout caused confusion)

Al Gore, a screaming lefty democrat, should have won the 2000 election.

Why is this important? This is just around 9/11 and Iraq and Bin Laden time. Would Al Gore have been so ready to go to war? With millions displaced / killed, billions of dollars of damage and nations turned upside down. The after effects in the Middle East still being played out today.

I say this as a Republican supporter but also because I’m not entrenched in prejudice and because I’m a realist: The democrats should have won that election. The few votes that were possibly illegal / unverified changed the course of history.

Let me double down:

1924. Ladywood Birmingham. (Stop rolling your eyes - you’ll get there). Unionist candidate (Tory) beat the Labour candidate after a few recounts. First count Tory won by about 7 votes, then another count Labour won by about 2 and then after an accusation of some Labour votes disappearing (Tory supporter shoved them up their coat, allegedly), the Tory candidate won.

Why is this important? The Tory was Neville Chamberlain and the Labour candidate was Oswald Mosley. Mosley at the time (1924) was tipped to be next PM (have in mind that the guy who later attended Mosley’s wedding - Hitler was up to all sorts in Germany at the time). Imagine Mosley being still on course to be PM around this time and Chamberlain out of office. As it happened, Mosely was out of parliament and lost momentum.

A handful of votes……

Anyone that says a few dodgy votes don’t make a difference - uneducated. Anyone that says mistakes don’t happen in elections - complete moron. Anyone that doesn’t think that bad actors that try to influence elections for their own aims don’t exist - gullible.

I’ve just given pretty factual examples of where small margins make big differences. In those cases, the “left” were thwarted by the “right”.

88000 votes swung the 2020 election. Entrenched dribblers started frothing when I mentioned that I’d like to see the final vote count for 2024 and see some expert analysis of 2020. Gore and Bush, incidentally got 50m votes each. Obama 60 odd million. Biden 81m and now both candidates 70m odd. 2020 was a strange election with mainly postal voting and therefore ID checks and so on quite difficult to audit.

I know it makes me a huge conspiracy theorist to even want to look at the figures of 100% honest squeaky clean 10% Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Nonetheless, so confident that everything was above board that Biden is now considering pardoning and giving immunity to those that certified the election.

Anyway, call me a crackpot now if you like but keep your fingers crossed that real evidence doesn’t come out that 2020 wasn’t straight.

To conclude:

Every vote counts.

Illegitimate votes and voting machine errors have changed the course of history.

Progressives lost out in the above.

Voter ID is important because it reduces the chance of fraud.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Democratic processes only work when both sides agree on the outcome, i.e. a winner and loser. Both sides in this election raised concerns about voter fraud in this year’s US election, then the previous questioning of the results in 2016 and 2020. With the USA, you have 50 states doing more or less their own thing in overseeing results (simplified view). The UK is much more uniform with our GE results.

Your point on this 50k suppression assumes a 1:1 ratio, which isn’t the case because someone mentioned that most people who were turned away came back with valid ID. There’s been 2-3 elections now since the changes and people should be aware of the

Final point, I just agree with voter ID from a philosophical perspective, like most people in this country. I’m not too fussed about the precise numbers about fraud and the data isn’t really reliable because how do measure that exactly? For example, a mate of mine used his and his dad’s mail ballots to vote twice. That’s low level fraud that would go undetected.

Anyway, the ‘argument’ is around voter suppression and these fears about widespread voter suppression are overblown, frankly.

So you've given proof that voter ID doesn't work to prevent electoral fraud.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You keep saying the result in the US was disputed in 2016 - any evidence of this?

The Democrats were propagated the idea that Trump won because of Russian interference. To claim an outside power unduly swung an election towards one candidate questions the integrity of the result and the legitimacy of Trump’s first presidency. Likewise, Trump not conceding in 2020 was an escalation in questioning the integrity of an election and clearly still believes he won that election hence the ‘too big to rig’ battlecry this election. The point here is that Pandora’s box has been open and both major parties have undermined the democratic process by questioning the integrity of the election they lost. It’s clear that some reforms need to take place so everyone is happier with the election results.

@The Philosopher mentioned the 2000 result… I genuinely think there would be mass civil unrest if that same election result repeated itself. The USA is so polarised it’s a worrying trend.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Ok.

Some nuance:

2000 Gore V Bush. The race was so close it came down to one state, Florida. Bush was declared winner eventually by about 500 votes and crucially, Gore conceded. In the post-analysis, there were about 600 late / unsigned / incorrect ballots that were for Bush that should have been discounted PLUS about 2000 votes were flipped away from Gore by a machine error.*(see butterfly ballot case - printing machine error / layout caused confusion)

Al Gore, a screaming lefty democrat, should have won the 2000 election.

Why is this important? This is just around 9/11 and Iraq and Bin Laden time. Would Al Gore have been so ready to go to war? With millions displaced / killed, billions of dollars of damage and nations turned upside down. The after effects in the Middle East still being played out today.

I say this as a Republican supporter but also because I’m not entrenched in prejudice and because I’m a realist: The democrats should have won that election. The few votes that were possibly illegal / unverified changed the course of history.

Let me double down:

1924. Ladywood Birmingham. (Stop rolling your eyes - you’ll get there). Unionist candidate (Tory) beat the Labour candidate after a few recounts. First count Tory won by about 7 votes, then another count Labour won by about 2 and then after an accusation of some Labour votes disappearing (Tory supporter shoved them up their coat, allegedly), the Tory candidate won.

Why is this important? The Tory was Neville Chamberlain and the Labour candidate was Oswald Mosley. Mosley at the time (1924) was tipped to be next PM (have in mind that the guy who later attended Mosley’s wedding - Hitler was up to all sorts in Germany at the time). Imagine Mosley being still on course to be PM around this time and Chamberlain out of office. As it happened, Mosely was out of parliament and lost momentum.

A handful of votes……

Anyone that says a few dodgy votes don’t make a difference - uneducated. Anyone that says mistakes don’t happen in elections - complete moron. Anyone that doesn’t think that bad actors that try to influence elections for their own aims don’t exist - gullible.

I’ve just given pretty factual examples of where small margins make big differences. In those cases, the “left” were thwarted by the “right”.

88000 votes swung the 2020 election. Entrenched dribblers started frothing when I mentioned that I’d like to see the final vote count for 2024 and see some expert analysis of 2020. Gore and Bush, incidentally got 50m votes each. Obama 60 odd million. Biden 81m and now both candidates 70m odd. 2020 was a strange election with mainly postal voting and therefore ID checks and so on quite difficult to audit.

I know it makes me a huge conspiracy theorist to even want to look at the figures of 100% honest squeaky clean 10% Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Nonetheless, so confident that everything was above board that Biden is now considering pardoning and giving immunity to those that certified the election.

Anyway, call me a crackpot now if you like but keep your fingers crossed that real evidence doesn’t come out that 2020 wasn’t straight.

To conclude:

Every vote counts.

Illegitimate votes and voting machine errors have changed the course of history.

Progressives lost out in the above.

Voter ID is important because it reduces the chance of fraud.

You keep peddling this complete nonsense, so let’s go case by case.

2024: Trump won fair and square. Basically nobody from the losing side is trying to blame it on fraud or manipulation. If he’d lost I doubt the likes of you would accept it like that, but there we are.

2020: The Republicans were in complete control over the election in Georgia which went to Biden by 12,000 votes. Trump tried to get Republican officials in the state to ‘get me 12,000 votes’, they refused and stood by what they certified. The recount in Arizona found Biden to have won by an even wider margin than first reported.

Trump this year said it was his right to interfere in that election.

2016: Trump won in the electoral college fair and square. There was some complaint about Russian ‘interference’ which I don’t think was ever really proven and seems to have amounted to putting Hillary’s dirty laundry in public view. No signs the vote itself was manipulated or illegitimate.

2004-2012, Bush and Obama won handsomely, no signs or issues with ‘fraud’.

2000: From what I read, Bush would still have carried Florida in the event of a recount. Al Gore saw fit to drop his challenge and respect the result which is good enough for me.

Voter ID laws are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The Democrats were propagated the idea that Trump won because of Russian interference. To claim an outside power unduly swung an election towards one candidate questions the integrity of the result and the legitimacy of Trump’s first presidency. Likewise, Trump not conceding in 2020 was an escalation in questioning the integrity of an election and clearly still believes he won that election hence the ‘too big to rig’ battlecry this election. The point here is that Pandora’s box has been open and both major parties have undermined the democratic process by questioning the integrity of the election they lost. It’s clear that some reforms need to take place so everyone is happier with the election results.

@The Philosopher mentioned the 2000 result… I genuinely think there would be mass civil unrest if that same election result repeated itself. The USA is so polarised it’s a worrying trend.

What % of Harris voters do not believe this year’s result was genuine?

 

[The Philosopher]

You keep peddling this complete nonsense, so let’s go case by case.

2024: Trump won fair and square. Basically nobody from the losing side is trying to blame it on fraud or manipulation. If he’d lost I doubt the likes of you would accept it like that, but there we are.

2020: The Republicans were in complete control over the election in Georgia which went to Biden by 12,000 votes. Trump tried to get Republican officials in the state to ‘get me 12,000 votes’, they refused and stood by what they certified. The recount in Arizona found Biden to have won by an even wider margin than first reported.

Trump this year said it was his right to interfere in that election.

2016: Trump won in the electoral college fair and square. There was some complaint about Russian ‘interference’ which I don’t think was ever really proven and seems to have amounted to putting Hillary’s dirty laundry in public view. No signs the vote itself was manipulated or illegitimate.

2004-2012, Bush and Obama won handsomely, no signs or issues with ‘fraud’.

2000: From what I read, Bush would still have carried Florida in the event of a recount. Al Gore saw fit to drop his challenge and respect the result which is good enough for me.

Voter ID laws are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

I don’t think you’ve taken any of the points on board, which is a shame.

Real wisdom will come from examining a situation from another viewpoint, as I have.

Work on those things, mindfulness is a gift.

 

[shmmeee]

Not much help in the UK though.

Give it a Reform victory.