CA Dems Legally Harvested Ballots to Defeat Republicans

Posted by Tina

A number of Republican candidates in strong conservative areas held substantial leads prior to election day. They also lost on election day. They won the count of both absentee and in person voters. But they lost those elections. How does this happen?

The party that makes the rules decides the election. Democrats control California politics, and absolute control rarely leads to a just result. Let’s look at the change in election law that made the difference for Democrat candidates in red districts:

In Orange County – once seen as a Republican stronghold in the state- every House seat went to a Democrat after an unprecedented “250,000” vote-by-mail drop-offs were counted, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“People were carrying in stacks of 100 and 200 of them. We had had multiple people calling to ask if these people were allowed to do this,” Kelley said.

Two years ago, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law AB1921, which legalized the so-called practice of “ballot harvesting.” Previously, only a family member or someone living in the same household was permitted to drop off mail ballots for a voter, but the new (law) allowed anyone – including political operatives – to collect and return them for a voter.

The excuse for the change was that it made it “easier to vote” for many Californians. Yeah, right. The old “easier” for the voter/citizen argument is becoming more mold ridden by the day. The thing that’s “easier” is cheating…doing morally reprehensible things to win elections.

Republicans lost the campaign in California in several ways. Number one, they did not take advantage of the new law the way Democrats did. It’s a distasteful law, but none the less, a legal method and Republicans must realize we are in a fight for the Republic that requires often distasteful activities. Two, Republicans did not focus enough attention (or cash?) on California races…all of the attention went to election fights in the eastern and southern part of the country, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan, Texas, and others. Three, CA Republican representatives have not fought hard enough regarding restrictions to conservative speech on college campuses, nor educated generally about the importance of free speech. And four, Republicans have not fought hard enough for border security, legal immigration, and the wall.

In a just world I doubt this law would pass the constitutional smell test; I’m certain it wouldn’t pass a morality test. Not when political operatives can bully and harass citizens to “help” them vote. The story above cited an 18 year old girl who wasn’t political and had no intention of voting but was visited four times by left operatives who offered to deliver her ballot for her. In all 250,000 such “votes” in one race were turned in by operatives that had harvested them.

It really does seem that everything Democrats do is tainted and tinged with slime…much like the “legitimate” businesses the mafia ran.

This entry was posted in Elections, Liberty, Morals and Ethics, politics, Western Values. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to CA Dems Legally Harvested Ballots to Defeat Republicans

  1. J. Soden says:

    The ideas of same-day voter registration and NO ID REQUIRED at the polls are ripe for shenanigans. Rather than an honest vote, the Despicable Demwits have to place their thumb on the voting scale in order to win.
    Taxifornia deserves what it has allowed to happen and honest folk will find another state where their vote will count. We left in 2000 – best move we ever made – and we avoid even driving through!

  2. Libby says:

    But if Republican Rotarians organized such a thing, and they do, you would not complain. Take two Anti-Partisan Pills, drink fluids, and get plenty of rest.

    • Tina says:

      I’ll ask again, “Do you even read the articles we post?”

      This isn’t just an “arrangement,” Libby.

      It’s a law! And no, I would not be for it if Republicans suggested it!

      This abomination of a voter law amounts to some citizens getting to vote more than once. Not for one minute do I believe that any of these so-called “harvested votes” are cast by the citizen whose name is scrawled onto the ballot. The harvesting agent either fills it in himself or schools the “voter” on which boxes to fill in.

      Of course radical Dems don’t give a rip about most laws, so maybe your ignorant response is appropriate after all.

      A hell of a lot of radical Dems don’t WORK either, thanks to all of those redistribution goodies, so they have plenty of time to volunteer for “harvesting” duty.

      This shouldn’t be a partisan point…hence the reference to morality. You need to pop a morality pill, drink fluids, and get plenty of rest.

      • Libby says:

        Tina, I do read them. And it’s you who make this statement:

        “Number one, they [Republicans] did not take advantage of the new law the way Democrats did.”

        … entirely out of your own head … with no evidence … when it is quite likely that Republican Rotarians do, in fact, and have for some time, “arranged” such enterprises themselves.

        How is it so horrible that an 80-year-old Rotarian should have their ballot put into the ballot box by somebody else? It’s not. And let’s be frank here, it’s the 20-year-old Hispanics that have your knickers in a twist.

        Well, the 80-year-old is going to vote to preserve her Medicare, and the 20-year-old is going to vote to preserve her Medicaid … and you, Tina, can just lump it.

        Furthermore, check out the doings below, in North Carolina, where it is NOT legal to transport a ballot for somebody else.

        • Tina says:

          “I do read them…Republican Rotarians do, in fact, and have for some time, “arranged” such enterprises themselves.”

          So, it isn’t a “reading” problem but a comprehension problem, quote:

          This abomination of a voter law amounts to some citizens getting to vote more than once. Not for one minute do I believe that any of these so-called “harvested votes” are cast by the citizen whose name is scrawled onto the ballot. The harvesting agent either fills it in himself or schools the “voter” on which boxes to fill in.

          People gonna cheat, and do. But when a state makes it legal our voting rights are further eroded. I don’t give a damn who does it, it’s unethical and unwise on several fronts!

          And yes, I did read about the people in NC…they are wrong as well if they are “harvesting votes.”

          Harvesting is distinguishable from people who make the effort to vote themselves by getting registered, requesting a mail-in ballot and asking someone in their household or another relative or friend to deliver it.

          In NC 1200 or so votes are in question. 250,000 were delovered and counted in OC, CA.

          Don’t play dumb, Libby, you know exactly what I’m talking about!

          Progressives have taken many steps in this state to corrupt the voting system. Auto-registration when you apply for a DL is another…this is how they harvested votes from 18 yr olds that had no interest or knowledge.

          • Libby says:

            “Harvesting is distinguishable from people who make the effort to vote themselves by getting registered, requesting a mail-in ballot ….”

            Still, you make no sense. Where do these “harvested” ballots come from if registered voters did not request them be sent to their houses? You make no sense.

      • Chris says:

        Not for one minute do I believe that any of these so-called “harvested votes” are cast by the citizen whose name is scrawled onto the ballot. The harvesting agent either fills it in himself or schools the “voter” on which boxes to fill in.

        Wait. You don’t believe any of those ballots are filled out by their rightful voter? That is quite a bold claim, Tina. Don’t you think you need some evidence for it?

        That and statements like saying that Dems are engaging in “KKK tactics” by…walking ballots to a polling place to help old people…make you sound extremely irrational.

  3. Libby says:

    And once your fever is down, give this a read:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

    Mind you, he does use some harsh language.

    • Tina says:

      He lost me and became an a$$ when, without naming names, he failed to list a single thing he would credit Democrats with to cause the “problem” of discord and distrust. Democrats, since Watergate, have used the opposition party as a whipping boy in the most disgusting and despicable ways…and gotten away with it due to the partisan nature of the press. He should look in the mirror, he was present during all of the nastiness his party dished! How dare he list Trump as the problem…he’s been in office less than two years and the conditions he cites were there before Trump announced. Yes, an absolute A$$!!

      Not worth reading, IMHO!

      Getting rid of the Senate is not a new idea, either.Those who prefer mob rule to a republic would love this step on the road to serfdom. The founders created the senate to protect minority populations from the big city mobs! To protect smaller states from states with large populations.

      This is Democrats attempting a KKK move against the people of the red states. It’s THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Get it?

      Naturally this radical bum would suggest this idea when Republicans hold the power in the Senate. Why didn’t he propose it when Obummer, Schummer and Pelosi had that super majority if he really thought it was such a grand idea? I’ll tell you why…they all assumed (like asses) that the Dem Party has already secured permanent political power…permanent power!

      Democrats hate the Constitution because it puts limits on what they can do to citizens. That’s exactly as the founders intended.

  4. Joe says:

    You people better get used to this and worse.

    Gabby Nuisance was elected and he’s going to be worse than Brown. AND he has a super majority of DemoRats in the legislature. And Demorats control every statewide office!

    DemoRats have never had more control of the state!

    And you know what that means? More tax increases, more spending, more debt and more regulation, guaranteed!

    Read in an article the Demorat Toni Atkins said she and her band of thieves will bring several bills that require two-thirds support to a vote in the next legislative session. Do you know what that means? Two-thirds support are code words for TAX INCREASES!

    And get ready for more local tax increases. The city of Chico hired a consultant to sell you on a sales tax increase possibly with a special election in 2019 and if not for sure on the 2020 ballot.

    It’s going to get a lot more expensive to live in an already grossly expensive state.

    It’s enough to make you want to put on a yellow vest and join the French!

    I told you people long ago that the state of Jefferson was your last and only hope but it’s too late now.

    • Joe says:

      And the Yellow Vests did it! The criminal Macron caved. Let that be a lesson to Commiefornia Demorats!

      The Latest: France’s Macron scraps fuel tax after protests

      https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/latest-leading-protest-activist-macron-speak-59624047

      • Chris says:

        Who wants to tell Joe that proposing tax legislation he doesn’t agree with does not make someone a “criminal?” Does it have to be me?

        • Joe says:

          Tell that to your buddy Macrony and the good people of France!

          VIVE LA FRANCE!

          ENFER AVEC MACRONE

        • Joe says:

          What level of taxation is OK with a statist like you? 40% of peoples income, 50%. How about 90%?

          But don’t worry. No matter how much of a persons income the politicians demand it’s never enough. Just look at the monstrous government debt and unfunded liabilities. It amounts to hundreds of trillions of dollars!

        • Joe says:

          You know nothing about what is going on in France. The middle class is being destroyed by socialism and Macron is putting the jack-boot of government down hard on the people squeezing what little is left of their finances with his tax increases. Eventually, people respond to tyranny and when they do it is not pretty but of course statists like refuse to acknowledge their pain.

        • Joe says:

          “Who wants to tell Joe that proposing tax legislation he doesn’t agree with does not make someone a “criminal?” Does it have to be me?”

          How about Pie or Jack? Maybe Mrs. Tina? 🙂

          • Chris says:

            Four replies, and not one of them supports the original charge that Macron is a “criminal.”

            This is seriously the best you can do.

          • Joe says:

            You never answered the question, statist.

            Yes, Macron is a criminal. The people of France have to decide what they will do without: food, heat, medicine or fuel to get to the store and work in order to pay his tax increases. His tax increases are literally taking the food off people’s table. But a statist taxaholic like you thinks that’s peachy.

            Meanwhile, your socialist hero Macron gets $10,000 haircuts.

          • Tina says:

            I’d give it a shot, Joe, but Chris has already shown he has no sense when it comes to oppression through taxation. Nor does he get the connection between private investment and prosperity.

            Our problem is the 16th amendment that gave our federal government the power to levy an income tax. Prior to that there were no income taxes!! (The civil war era being an exception)

            Instead, let’s go for a bit of reflection and levity!

            “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin

            Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P. J. O’Rourke

            Robert Brault: “The IRS is an agency modeled after the revenue raising concepts of the 19th century economist, Jesse James.”

            John Marshall: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

            Albert Camus: “Note, besides, that it is no more immoral to directly rob citizens than to slip indirect taxes into the price of goods that they cannot do without.”

            Anonymous: “A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something right.”

            Bob Thaves: “I don’t know if I can live on my income or not–the government won’t let me try it.”

            Calvin Coolidge: “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.”

            Chris Rock: “You don’t pay taxes–they take taxes.”

            Dave Barry: “It’s income tax time again, Americans: time to gather up those receipts, get out those tax forms, sharpen up that pencil, and stab yourself in the aorta.”

            Grover Cleveland: “When more of the people’s sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of free government.”

            James Madison: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

            Lao Tzu: “The people are hungry: It is because those in authority eat up too much in taxes.”

            Max Baucus: “Tax complexity itself is a kind of tax.”

            Milton Friedman: “Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay.”

            Paula Poundstone: “The wages of sin are death, but after they take the taxes out, it’s more like a tired feeling, really.”

            Peg Bracken: “Why does a slight tax increase cost you two hundred dollars and a substantial tax cut save you thirty cents?”

            Robert Half: “People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can’t live within its income.”

            Steve Forbes: “The politicians say ‘we’ can’t afford a tax cut. Maybe we can’t afford the politicians.”

            Will Rogers: “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.”

            Winston S. Churchill: “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

            “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” — Thomas Jefferson

            “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” — Thomas Jefferson

            “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” — Samuel Adams (1722�1803)

            “…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” — Thomas Jefferson

            “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. ” — John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774

            Were all in the debt bucket now and people like Chris just don’t get that the solution isn’t higher tax rates, it’s less government/spending! It’s a balanced budget!

            Read more of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers here.

          • Tina says:

            Criminal, according to Merrium Webster, has four definitions Numbers 3 and 4 apply:

            3 : guilty of crime also : of or befitting a criminal a criminal mind

            4 : disgraceful It’s criminal how unfunny this comedy is.— Rick Bentley

    • Joe says:

      “On Tuesday, France delayed for six months a plan to raise already steep taxes on diesel fuel by 24 cents a gallon and gasoline by about 12 cents a gallon. Macron argued that the taxes were needed to curb climate change by weaning motorists off petroleum products, but violent demonstrations in the streets of Paris and other French cities forced him to backtrack – at least for now.”

      Dang, that’s exactly how much the DemoRats raise our gas and diesel taxes last year. (Diesel was 20 cents a gallon plus an increase in the special sales tax on diesel which amounted to another 4 cents). And the DemoRats made it worse by making the tax go up automatically every year.

      And how did the people of Commiefornia react? Not a protest in sight and they didn’t even vote down the tax increases when they had the chance.

      The people of Commiefornia are nothing more than whipped dog tax slaves to the DemoRats.

      • Joe says:

        And today Macrony backed down completely.

        “An official with the Elysee palace told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the president decided to get rid of the tax.”

        People of Commiefornia, grow a pair and hit the streets in protest!

        • Chris says:

          So, just so I have this right:

          Left-wing violent protests = bad

          Right-wing violent protests = good

          Thanks for clearing that up.

          • Joe says:

            You’d be right at home with the soul crushing taxation the criminal politicians of France have inflicted on their people.

          • Joe says:

            “Thanks for clearing that up.”

            You’re welcome. And your comment was Soros Approved™

          • Chris says:

            So you concede that you are OK with violent protest against…high taxes.

            Thanks.

          • Joe says:

            Never said that and you know it. Put words in peoples’ mouths…that’s typical of you lefty liars.

            But of course it’s all good, as you are Soros Approved™.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Ha! Welcome to the club Joe. The far left frequently puts words in the mouths of others or takes selective words out of context. It’s a very common tactic.

          • Tina says:

            Right wing violence?

            They have been called “yellow vest protesters.”

            How does that make them right wing?

            I have not read or heard the YV protesters protesters identified by party affiliation or political leanings. I think they’re just furious citizens.

          • Chris says:

            Joe, you’ve:

            –Shown that you agree with the purpose of the violent protests
            –Encouraged Californians to do the same
            –Expressed glee that Macron caved after the violent protests

            So I think it is absolutely a fair assumption that you support the violent protests.

            You could clear that up immediately by saying “I condemn the violent protests.”

            But you won’t.

            Because you support violent protests as long as they’re right-wing.

          • Joe says:

            “So I think it is absolutely a fair assumption that you support the violent protests.”

            You just proved the old saying, “Don’t assume. It makes an ass out of you.”

      • Tina says:

        It goes to show that it takes being taxed at nearly 100% across the board to get people to notice they’ve sold their own futures to a bunch of tyrannical thieves.

        This is happening in different ways all across Europe but it gets little notice in our press.

        • Joe says:

          All across Europe? Yes but you don’t need to look at Europe to see it. It’s happening in your own state of Commiefornia.

          After this last election the DemoRats have soul crushing control of this state and they are going to use it!

    • Tina says:

      It’s never too late Joe, but we do have a sizable mountain to climb in California.

  5. Libby says:

    “This is Democrats attempting a KKK move against the people of the red states.”

    Really? That’s not what I hear.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/republican-democracy-stress-test-michigan-wisconsin-north-carolina.html

    “road to serfdom” … “KKK move” … “hate the Constitution” …

    You really do need to take that pill.

  6. Libby says:

    Must Off Topic again … because you guys just aren’t keeping up.

    It’s an Off Topic Taunt, actually.

    Oh, Jack … how about that Dow Drop? I hear your Prezzy’s loose lips had something to do with it? Your own media turn on the man:

    https://nypost.com/2018/12/04/dow-drops-more-than-700-points-on-trumps-tariff-man-tweet/

    • Joe says:

      It’s an Off Topic Taunt, actually.

      Oh, Jack … how about that Dow Drop? I hear your Prezzy’s loose lips had something to do with it?

      Why are you taunting Jack?

      The streets in Heaven are paved in gold but the streets in your progressive paradise of San Francrisco are paved in feces and needles.

      So why aren’t you spending your time cleaning up San Francrisco instead of wasting it taunting Jack???

    • Tina says:

      “…you guys just aren’t keeping up.”

      Try running a blog yourself and then tell me about “keeping up”

  7. Libby says:

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear …

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utah-hate-crime-laws_us_5c058719e4b066b5cfa4b005

    Just coming apart at the seams … so we are.

    • Harold says:

      Seems like every would be “Presidential Candidate” in either party need to get some stitches doesn’t it.

      https://start.att.net/news/read/category/news/article/cnn-kamala_harris_aide_resigns_after_harassment_accusa-cnn2

      Booker, Warren, Harris and the beat (down) goes on…….
      .
      Karma is a B…H isn’t it!……Oh My, yes !

    • Tina says:

      “a case cannot be tried as a hate crime if the charge is more serious than a misdemeanor”

      Because a similar assault on a white man isn’t as bad…and because people should be arrested for having disgusting opinions and thoughts.

      Every assault is hateful.

      Did anyone on the left suggest the criminals that murdered cops sitting in their squad cars had committed hate crimes? Hell no…those cops were white. And in the minds of some POC the murders were justified based on race.

      You people and your obsession with race are disturbing. You are undermining the rule of law and distorting and contorting the meaning of racism and bigotry for political reasons. UGLY!

      You have convinced a generation or more that thinking is the same as doing.

      You’ve convinced a generation or more that anyone who disagrees with them is racist.

      You’ve convinced a generation or more that Republicans are all racists.

      SHAME ON YOU!

      • Chris says:

        Jesus, calm down.

        Hate crimes against whites are prosecuted too. They are just more rare, as is anti-white discrimination as a whole in our country.

        They have nothing to do with arresting people for “thoughts and opinions.” They are about motive. Lots of crimes are considered more or less serious depending on the motive; this is a basic aspect of law. Hate crimes are worth prosecuting more harshly than others because the criminal represents a danger to the entire community they’ve targeted, not just their actual victim. They are often motivated by a desire to inflict terror on an entire community. If you object to hate crime laws you may as well object to anti-terrorism laws, because hey, murder and blowing stuff up are already crimes, so what does it matter if the guy chanted “Allahu ackbar” while doing it? See how ridiculous that sounds?

        • Tina says:

          Of course it’s about motive! But hate based on race gender etc is not always clear cut or even recognized. Sometimes it’s obvious but not always.

          Crimes of hate against whites aren’t as rare as you think, especially since the last administration chose to gin up hate and anger in Florida, Jefferson, and Dallas when they should have been focusing on black on black crime in Chicago!

          2013, Human Events, “Black America’s real problem isn’t white racism”:

          The result of all this ginned-up rage that has produced vandalism and violence is simply going to be an ever-deepening racial divide.

          Consider the matter of crime and fear of crime.

          From listening to cable channels and hearing Holder, Sharpton, Jealous and others, one would think the great threat to black children today emanates from white vigilantes and white cops. …

          … In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.

          New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms … Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city. …

          … What about interracial crime, white-on-black attacks and the reverse?

          After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”

          Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

          If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?

          How many of those crimes would or could be labeled “hate” crimes against whites if they were being treated equally? Is there a clear, evidence based way to tell? No. Not every person who shoots or knifes or rapes or loots will signal his race hatred. And in how many of those crimes, if based in hatred of whites, might have been avoided if blacks and Hispanics were not being convinced in politics, schools, and media that half the population (whites/Republicans) hates them?

          I agree with the statement made by Nelson Mandela, “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

          It’s my opinion that hate and anger among the races has been escalating as race animosity has been encouraged and promoted through the left’s constant references to race and constant false accusations against Republicans.
          Hyping “hate crimes” has become a feature of this political obsession and it’s worked against the ideals of equality and brotherhood that we have striven for throughout our history as a nation. Americans are quite capable of recognizing a hateful crime. Judges and juries are quite capable of including hateful motivations as they consider sentencing.

    • Tina says:

      So you think stacking up stories is the name of the game?

      We at PS have about fifteen years of em!

  8. Chris says:

    And four, Republicans have not fought hard enough for border security, legal immigration, and the wall.

    The wall is extremely unpopular among Americans, and even more unpopular among Californians. Had Republicans fought harder for it, they would have lost harder.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-continue-to-oppose-u-s-mexico-border-wall-cbs-news-poll/

    • Tina says:

      It helps that pollsters ask questions to get that result:

      it’s worth looking at what Pew asked: “All in all, would you favor or oppose building a wall along the entire border with Mexico?” … It might make more sense to ask, “Would you favor or oppose building a wall along the remaining, unwalled portion of the border with Mexico?”

      Or maybe a better one, “Would you favor building a wall along some locations at the southern border” Clearly some areas lend themselves to other methods.

      And as Attkisson points out, why asl a question that isn’t under consideration?

      In July, President Trump told reporters, “It’s a 2,000-mile border, but you don’t need 2,000 miles of wall because you have a lot of natural barriers.” …(examples of media exaggerations and spin) …

      … In February 2016, he told MSNBC, “Of the 2,000, we don’t need 2,000, we need 1,000 because we have natural barriers etc. etc.” He repeated himself in March, and in November, he told Sixty Minutes that part of the border barrier could be fencing rather than a wall.

      It turns out Trump even said it early in his candidacy. “You also have natural terrain which is automatically a barrier, which is a good thing,” the Republican presidential candidate told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo on August 20, 2015. “So you’re talking about a thousand… a little more than a thousand miles.”

      Again, Attkisson: “Pew ended up with a Democrat-heavy sample: 38 percent Republican/Republican leaning and 52 percent Democrat/Democrat leaning. The 14 percentage point difference means Pew interviewed 38 percent more Democrat thinkers than Republican thinkers. I can’t find any estimate that says the actual U.S. population is politically lopsided along those lines.”

      Wouldn’t the American people be better served by accurate polling and reporting?

      An Aug 2015 poll found voters favored building a wall: “Voters Want to Build A Wall, Deport Felon Illegal Immigrants.”

      The constant lies (Trump & supporters are racist) and negative media reporting (building a wall would be ineffective) sway opinion. Do you really want policy to be skewed by propaganda and lies? Is it smart to make law based on ginned up emotions? Wouldn’t it be better if we could consider ideas honestly, without the constant manipulation?

      • Chris says:

        Tina, everything about Trump’s immigration stance is based on emotions: fear and anger. “When Mexico sends its people…they’re sending crime, and they’re sending drugs. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” is not a logical argument, it is an emotional one. Trump’s entire appeal and rhetorical style is emotional; to deny this is to deny reality.

        The facts show that immigration is at a record low. Despite a few surges that are blown out of proportion by Fox and other right-wing sources, there is no larger immigration “crisis.” We can easily absorb most of the people trying to come here in the caravan, for instance, we are just choosing not to. There is a negative correlation between immigration and crime. The Ms-13 talking point is a canard; that gang started in the US and spread out from there, and they are not even the biggest or most dangerous gang in Central America. They aren’t taking our jobs, as unemployment continues to fall. So if either of us are basing our opinions on propaganda, manipulation, misinformation, emotion, and fearmongering, it’s you.

        I almost didn’t read the Attkisson piece you linked to because of the author, but she makes a semi-decent argument. The best rebuttal can be found in the comments, however:

        “You can pick a few interviews to show Trump speaking realistically about the border, but at rally after rally he told his supporters he was going to build a wall along the entire border; and you ask most Trump supporters what the wall would be, that’s what they believe.

        The whole thing is such a ridiculous subject. A gigantic wall along any stretch of the border is just a boondoggle. There’s any number of realistic measures that can & should be done to secure our border, but reducing it to “The Wall” has been & is a disingenuous campaign slogan meant to appeal to the simple-minded.

        This article tries to convince us that “The Wall” is a more nuanced topic–claims support is underreported, but doesn’t acknowledge support comes from the less-nuanced understanding amongst Trump supporters.”

        She also links to nothing that would support the idea that most Americans do support the wall. Rasmussen doesn’t count; they are always an outlier with a strong Republican bias.

        Most illegal immigrants overstay their visas. A wall would not help with that.

        My position on immigration is very similar to the conservative position on gun control, which as you know I’ve been slowly coming around to as I become more libertarian: people are going to find a way to get what they want, especially when they are desperate. Freedom of movement is not a constitutional right, but it is, in my opinion, a natural one, just like the freedom to defend oneself. If you support freedom then you should support it for everyone. “Illegal” immigration should be reserved for those individuals the government has proven pose a danger to the country. Borders would not be open, but they would be more open than they are now. Criminalizing immigration just creates more criminals. Legalizing more immigration creates more legal immigration. The mother fleeing gang violence with her children is going to come in one way or another; kicking her out helps no American, anywhere, in any way. It just hurts her. It is needless cruelty.

        This is a self-inflicted problem and Trump has made it worse by closing points of entry, separating families, and putting kids in cages and teargassing them. Yes, Obama did this too, but more rarely—and plenty of liberals protested or spoke out about his immigration policies, myself included. You said he wasn’t tough enough, so it seems hypocritical for you to turn around and say Trump is just doing what he did now.

        • Tina says:

          “everything about Trump’s immigration stance is based on emotions…”

          Not true. Trump used his style to tap into voters who were angry about the border and wanted something done on the campaign trail (what politician doesn’t do this?). But when it comes to policy, including the wall, he based much of his policy on the things the border patrol and security people had told him they needed to protect and secure our border and restore law and order.

          “‘When Mexico sends its people…they’re sending crime, and they’re sending drugs. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,’ is not a logical argument.”

          The statement contains certain truths that you guys don’t or won’t acknowledge or address. Sadly, many of the people crossing the border illegally are involved in gross criminal activity. Drug traffickers, human traffickers, murderers, rapists, dangerous gangs and thieves. All of them break laws just by crossing illegally…those that have been sent home and cross again are committing a felony! (Perhaps you could get this if you didn’t have so many notions about Trump that aren’t true…and it isn’t all his fault. Reacting to tweets and campaign statements is not the best way to discover what’s really going on)

          You don’t like his style of delivery. Too bad. I wasn’t very fond of Obama’s pretentious smarmy delivery either. I had to live with it for eight years. You may just get the same opportunity!

          “…and you ask most Trump supporters what the wall would be, that’s what they believe.”

          I assume you’ve spoken to them personally…all of them?!??

          “…a disingenuous campaign slogan meant to appeal to the simple-minded.”

          And F-You very much as well!

          Just because you don’t get Trump, doesn’t mean his supporters don’t, or that they’re “simple-minded.”

          “Rasmussen doesn’t count; they are always an outlier with a strong Republican bias.”

          It “counts” as much as the left leaning/skewed polls that you prefer…geez, Chris!

          “Most illegal immigrants overstay their visas. A wall would not help with that. ”

          It’s purpose has nothing to do with that. It would be part of a solution to gain better control of our southern border and the criminal activity that flows across with relative ease. It would greatly assist the agents!

          “Borders would not be open, but they would be more open than they are now.”

          Explain.

          My response to your idea of freedom is to remind you of the responsibilities that go along with having freedom. Adherence to the law is one of them.

          “If you support freedom then you should support it for everyone. … The mother fleeing gang violence with her children is going to come in one way or another; kicking her out helps no American, anywhere, in any way. It just hurts her. It is needless cruelty. ”

          The one mother example is easy to defend. Try realizing that the world is filled with people like that one mother. Quite a number of them live south of our border.

          America cannot absorb all of them, or even millions of them year after year, without going broke and forever damaging the last best hope for any people anywhere…the ideal of freedom backed by the rule of law. (Take a look at Europe since Merkel opened the gates. It’s a mess and the people are overwhelmed, suffering, and losing the values struggle.

          We would do better to encourage freedom and discourage tyranny in the homelands of these people. A good solution where they live would serve the mother and her children better and for the longer haul. Reagan worked toward that goal…Democrats have always given lip service and assistance to the likes of Castro and Chavez and look what’s happened!

          “Trump has made it worse by closing points of entry, separating families, and putting kids in cages and teargassing them. … Obama did this too, but more rarely”

          As far as I recall the only time we became aware of a surge of immigrants with Obama was toward the end of his presidency. The press treated him with kid gloves…they worked overtime to paint Trump a villain. Then there’s the left wing organizations that are funding and supporting this crush of humanity on our southern border. I call it an invasion because it is meant to create havoc with our legal system and overtax our social services and schools. The organizers don’t care about the poor mom and her kids…she is a means to an end for them. And by the way, journalist that have traveled with the caravan have said the majority of them are young men. Some are MS13. We know because of the tats. Many of these boys and young men are recruited by gangs when they get into the country.

          The free trade agreement includes higher wages for car manufacturer emloyees in Mexico. Trump understands that these third world countries have to develop and create good jobs for their people if any of us is to survive. His talks with the Saudis and others in the ME also included this very real truth. Thriving democracies do not go to war with each other…peace is another benefit.

          “You said he wasn’t tough enough, so it seems hypocritical for you to turn around and say Trump is just doing what he did now.”

          No it isn’t. I brought that up only because the left media covered Obama’s border solutions glowingly for the most part. We dod not read or hear that Obama was keeping kids in cages or using pepper spray and tear gas. When they pulled that crap on Trump I felt obligated to point out THEIR hypocrisy!

          Glad to hear you’re becoming more libertarian. Hope that puts you further into Rand Paul’s camp rather than Bernie’s.

          In my opinion Trump is doing what good fathers (leaders) do in any family. He’s willing to take the slings and arrows of detractors and enemies while working to right the ship for the American family. He wants Americans to have good jobs and be safe on their streets. He works tirelessly and with purpose. It’s too bad the media isn’t doing a good job (hasn’t for years). The people should get better coverage of the many things hes doing that are positive. Other leaders could learn from his focus, energy, and powers of persuasion. (I think some are learning…others are intimidated or embarrassed…he makes them look bad)

          • Chris says:

            Tina, “And some, I assume, are good people” means that most of them are not. That’s what that means.

            “In my opinion Trump is doing what good fathers (leaders) do in any family.”

            Good lord, we’re enduring all of this because a whole generation has daddy issues…

            Do good fathers typically talk about their daughters’ bodies the way Trump talks about his?

            Do they brag about their affairs to the media?

            He’s willing to take the slings and arrows of detractors and enemies while working to right the ship for the American family.

            He does literally nothing but complain about those slings and arrows.

            He’s a weak man’s idea of a strong man. If you think he is strong, it is because you are so weak.

            He wants Americans to have good jobs and be safe on their streets.

            Oh! He does? Well, that changes everything!

            Tina, every president wants that. Every president has always wanted that. This is literally a meaningless statement.

            He works tirelessly and with purpose.

            He has golfed more than any president in history. You pretended to have a problem with that when Obama did it. But you didn’t.

            (I think some are learning…others are intimidated or embarrassed…he makes them look bad)

            Imagine watching the way Trump behaves with other leaders and thinking he makes them look bad.

  9. Tina says:

    Libby: ” Where do these “harvested” ballots come from if registered voters did not request them be sent to their houses? ”

    The people targeted were registered when they applied for a drivers license (You have to opt out). Mail-in ballots were hand delivered to them and then filled out with the “help” of the harvesting operator. Prime targets appear to be young people 18 and over that have shown no interest in politics or voting.

    250,000 is a significant number of found votes…votes apparently discovered a significant amount of time after election day too by the way.

  10. Tina says:

    Chris: “You don’t believe any of those ballots are filled out by their rightful voter? That is quite a bold claim, Tina. Don’t you think you need some evidence for it?”

    Read the above to Libby, Chris. Changes in the law have changed the ballgame. The infirm elderly have always had the ability to cast an absentee vote with a co-signature by a relative or friend who delivered/mailed it. These are votes being solicited or harvested, sometimes through harassment and bullying according to the article.

    So no, I don’t believe that the ballots represent the informed decision and choice of a responsible voter.

    • Libby says:

      “So no, I don’t believe that the ballots represent the informed decision and choice of a responsible voter.”

      Then you (also the Wisconsin, Michigan and N. C. GOP) do not, in fact, believe in democracy. You could have just said so years ago, and saved no end of squabbling.

      You believe that only you, and your interests, should be served by your government. This is selfish, greedy, and wildly uncharitable … and at this season of the year, too.

      • Tina says:

        “…you do not, in fact, believe in democracy.”

        Horsefeathers!

        RESPONSIBILITY! It must play a part here. Being a responsible citizen isn’t defined by sitting at home until all votes have been cast, a winning result announced, and wondering if a harvester will come vote for you…especially when the harvesters intent is to overturn the outcome that happened on voting day!!!

        Deceitfulness is the hallmark of your party, Libby, and democracy is the furthest thing from your minds. You work to overturn this republic and turn it into a socialists paradise…just like Venezuela and Cuba…they “harvest” votes there too.

    • Chris says:

      “So no, I don’t believe that the ballots represent the informed decision and choice of a responsible voter.”

      But you have no evidence. You just “believe” this because there are certain citizens in this country you don’t want to vote.

      • Tina says:

        Evidence?

        How about the 18 year olds testimony? Says she was harrassed and bullied. They came back four times.

        Whether it’s what I believe or not, one thing is clear. The law will not discourage deceitful activity. Brown and your party leaders in CA have made practices that are consistent with those practiced by the mob legal CA. YOUR votes don’t count…only the party handlers have authority over elections now!

  11. Libby says:

    “Every assault is hateful.”

    True. But if you assert that this one is getting too much attention because of the circumstances … well, does that really sound right to you? Suppose the motivation was greed. Greed is not an admirable motivation, certainly, but it is also … not overtly malicious. The whacking of someone to get to the cash register is not so disturbing to the psyche of a reader as is the malice, the hate, embodied in “I’m here to kill a Mexican.”

    “You people and your obsession with race are disturbing.”

    Obsession? Let me think. Ahhh!! The reporting of the racist’s motivation is obsessive? How so?

    “You’ve convinced a generation or more that anyone who disagrees with them is racist.”

    And this makes no sense at all. Unless … you assert that … no … in response to the article posted, this makes no sense at all.

    “I here to kill a Mexican” is a racist motivation. If you disagree with that … there is something deeply wrong with you.

    Truth is … I posted it because, when I read that phrase … well, let’s just say that there has been a steady social disintegration manifesting on this site for some years now. Every other month or so, Jack goes on a “The Hispanics are Coming to Get Me!” rant. And truthfully, I got a nasty flash of Jack, off the rails, when I read this story, and felt a strong compulsion to bring the matter to your attention.

    • Tina says:

      Murder or assault bleeds the same in every person…isn’t that EXACTLY the sentiment posed in the sixties and seventies? You know that it was!

      A law that discriminates based on race is a law that discriminates!

      The racism in one individual is being used politically now to taint an entire race (whites)…that is exactly where you and your party have gone with it!

      I can’t stomach it. It’s bigotry pure and simple.

      • Chris says:

        Murder or assault bleeds the same in every person…isn’t that EXACTLY the sentiment posed in the sixties and seventies? You know that it was!

        A law that discriminates based on race is a law that discriminates!

        But hate crime laws do not “discriminate based on race.” They apply to people who target whites for being white as well.

        You know this.

        Why do you constantly pretend not to know things that you already know?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *