Fired Covid-19 Data Manager is Now Running for Congress (orlandoweekly.com) 214
Florida's fired Department of Health data manager Rebekah Jones lost access to her 400,000 followers on Twitter last month — which she'd been using to criticize Florida governor Ron DeSantis for downplaying the severity of the state's Covid-19 crisis. Then Jones announced she'd be running for Congress. "This also means, under Desantis' recently signed social media law, I get to fine Twitter $250K per day until my account is restored starting July 1."
Orlando Weekly reports: After a media frenzy, Jones deleted the post. She said she was attempting to point out Gov. Ron DeSantis's "hypocrisy" in writing a law that allowed political candidates to sue media companies that ban them, while still celebrating her Twitter suspension...
The bit became real when she filed to run as an Independent in Florida's 1st congressional district on June 25...
On her campaign website, she lists eight issues on her platform: protecting Florida's environmental systems, promoting government transparency, fighting for media accountability in disinformation, giving access to representatives, ensuring the district's veterans are taken care of, scrutinizing restrictive voting laws, funding science and research, and boosting support for all levels of education. Jones says there's still room for other issues on her platform, after she talks to more residents.
Jones' GoFundMe account ("DefendScience") now directs visitors to her official campaign site if they want to make campaign contributions. (And the GoFundMe page also notes that her campaign has been endorsed by 90-year-old Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret government study on the Vietnam War.)
But the last six weeks have been a wild ride for the data scientist:
Orlando Weekly reports: After a media frenzy, Jones deleted the post. She said she was attempting to point out Gov. Ron DeSantis's "hypocrisy" in writing a law that allowed political candidates to sue media companies that ban them, while still celebrating her Twitter suspension...
The bit became real when she filed to run as an Independent in Florida's 1st congressional district on June 25...
On her campaign website, she lists eight issues on her platform: protecting Florida's environmental systems, promoting government transparency, fighting for media accountability in disinformation, giving access to representatives, ensuring the district's veterans are taken care of, scrutinizing restrictive voting laws, funding science and research, and boosting support for all levels of education. Jones says there's still room for other issues on her platform, after she talks to more residents.
Jones' GoFundMe account ("DefendScience") now directs visitors to her official campaign site if they want to make campaign contributions. (And the GoFundMe page also notes that her campaign has been endorsed by 90-year-old Daniel Ellsberg, the famous whistleblower who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret government study on the Vietnam War.)
But the last six weeks have been a wild ride for the data scientist:
- Last month Florida's Inspector General granted official whistleblower status to Jones.
- Six days later Twitter told Slashdot they'd "permanently suspended" Jones' account "for violations of the Twitter Rules on spam and platform manipulation."
- When Jones then created a new Twitter account for her campaign, "it was suspended within a day of its creation," Orlando Weekly reports.
- Jones created a new account on Instagram named "insubordinatescientist". Yet since June 16th Instagram has also marked it as "unavailable," saying the link "may be broken, or the page may have been removed." (Since June 16th Instagram has not responded to Slashdot's request for an explanation.)
- Jones' GoFundMe page now refers visitors to an entirely different Instagram page.
Yesterday the official coronavirus coordinator for the White House reported that one in five of America's Covid-19 cases this week have come from Florida.
I'm not sure what's going on, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, this girl is playing by the rules.
Twitter has set up rules to avoid abuse by people trying to anonymously game the system. What's happening here is she's put her name and reputation on the line. I think she deserves whatever notoriety she brings upon herself.
If you can beat the system and play inside of the rules... Honestly, if I lived in Florida, I'd vote for her simply to defend her right to do exactly what she's doing. This is an important display and test of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Whether she wins or loses, kudos to her.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What part of creating new accounts to evade bans do you think is "playing by the rules"?
Re: (Score:3)
The part where political candidates are allowed to create proxy accounts for their campaigns and are not subject to numerous Twitter rules because they've become "notable."
And it's "avoidance," not "evasion," but buy does it make you salty.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Spam and platform manipulation, according to Twitter. More specifically, apparently buying followers [slashdot.org] from a shady network that hijacks people's Twitter accounts to make them follow strangers.
She originally claimed she would be back on Twitter "soon" after being suspended, which turned out to be about as true as anything else she claims: "It was clearly an auto-lock feature against spamming. Should be back up soon," Jones told the [Miami] Herald.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn, Slashdot, get URLs right: https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
Re: I'm not sure what's going on, but (Score:5, Informative)
You could just reference the summary; the Slashdot story about her getting kicked off twitter is the first link in the first line.
"What is not known is whether Rebekah Jones purchased the followers herself, or whether it was a false-flag campaign meant to discredit her."
From the Forbes link. Many posts in the /. story argue convincingly that the answer is b: false flag.
Re: (Score:2)
She originally claimed she would be back on Twitter "soon" after being suspended, which turned out to be about as true as anything else she claims:
To be fair, she cut/pasted that from Trump's website ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? Twitter's rules are clear that you're not allowed to evade a ban even if the ban was unfair, not even if you appeal and it gets reversed, so regardless of whether she was playing by the rules originally, she stopped doing that at some point.
That does mean there are situations where the rules are unfair, where it may be better to break the rules. No comment on whether that happened here.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly, this girl is playing by the rules.
No, she's abusing reactionary policy incited and inflamed by equally absurd pendulum swinging on the other side that wishes to suppress and censor any viewpoint not aligned with their own.
Sensible logical rules will eventually emerge, but not before corrupt politicians pound each other with stupid ones for a while (as if anyone has a fucking chance with a lawsuit against a mega-corp). The pendulum eventually dies down to find a sensible middle ground to base real action on.
Either that, or the Political Ci
Re: (Score:2)
So politics as usual, or perhaps the last several years didn’t happen and all is well.
The pendulum very much does not do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone is bending the pendulum in One direction. Now this is partisan politics which is guaranteed to rile people up on slash Dot. So I'll ask you a question. Given it the pendulum is shifting far to the right, do you think that you'll always agree with the right wing party heads? Think Liz Cheney, mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell. Will the policies those people push always be the policies you agree with? Because remember those voter suppression bills? The window is closing for you to decide, because if you ever disagree with the party apparatus those bills will be used against you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You should Google the phrase Overton window. It refers to the acceptable ideas and political discourse. It's been shifting hard to the right since the 1970s. So in the seventies the idea of enough unemployment insurance to pay for rent and food wasn't a radical idea. In the year 2021 it's stalinist communism, and a group of right-wing extremists stormed the capital in an effort to overturn election results they disagree with and we're just kind of shrugging it off. Not to mention the 400 plus voter suppression laws working their way through various state legislatures as template laws. Someone is bending the pendulum in One direction. Now this is partisan politics which is guaranteed to rile people up on slash Dot. So I'll ask you a question. Given it the pendulum is shifting far to the right, do you think that you'll always agree with the right wing party heads? Think Liz Cheney, mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell. Will the policies those people push always be the policies you agree with? Because remember those voter suppression bills? The window is closing for you to decide, because if you ever disagree with the party apparatus those bills will be used against you.
Most of the "leaders" today, are not leaders. They're corrupt greedy humans representing themselves, not the People. I don't care of the name you toss is Pelosi, Bush, Trump, or Biden. Doesn't matter. There's a reason a man became a leader by beating a Drain-the-Swamp drum. The best way to fix the current political "system", is to get rid of all of those who have corrupted it. Which means most of them.
And voter "suppression" bills, are not what they are being touted by the MSM. There is nothing, and
Re: (Score:2)
If your government automatically issues ID to everyone, and its inescapable, then fine. As it stands, they can basically close all the issuing centres in the predominantly black parts of town for example. Sure anyonecan get ID in theory, but if you're from an area that traditionally votes the wrong way, we'll make it hard. And of course if you're poor and have two minimum wage jobs, good luck finding the time to trek you a distant centre!
We both know this. This is why people supporting voter ID are much more interested in suppressing legitimate votes than they are in fairness of voting.
This is why rational people no longer take the anti-voter ID people serious. Look at the polls in the US. Even Democrats are recognizing your hypotheticals are bullshit.
Nobody can navigate life in the US without some form of ID. The "poor" can't get Medicaid, EBT or other assistance without one. You can't rent an apartment or start a job. You can't cash a check. You can't open a banking account. You can't get unemployment benefits. That horse is just a skeleton now. You can stop beating it.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you quite done with making shit up?
Every time people have looked into voter fraud, the numbers are minuscule. I know this and you know this.
If that were true, then tell me something; why in the hell is one particular political party hell bent on fighting to ensure that voter ID is killed? Why do you think several sensible states have risen up against that "made up" shit? Why even fight against voter ID at all if the problem is "minuscule"?
There is NOTHING "legitimate" about insisting that those who vote in the National election of a country to select its leader, should be allowed to do so without showing proof of eligibility. You can try and
Re: (Score:3)
If that were true, then tell me something; why in the hell is one particular political party hell bent on fighting to ensure that voter ID is killed?
Because the other party just spent an insane amount of time and money to try and find fraud and found essentially fuck all.
That's not a reason or a valid excuse to dismiss Voter ID. At all.
Therefore we know now that Voter ID won't decrease fraud.
So why do you want it so bad?
Because it makes perfect sense? Because we have immigrants pouriing over an ignored (by design) border crisis? Because other States in our Republic agree with me? Because we still have democratic leaders refusing to answer for discrepancies still being discovered today in our last election? Because we as a country deserve election integrity?
Keep beating that dead horse if you want. Your argument against Voter ID in a country that demand
Re: (Score:3)
Right so you won't state your reasons for wanting voter ID.
We BOTH know fraud isn't it because after vast amounts of expensive searching, fraud has been found to be negligible.
The only reason must be something other than fraud.
Because we as a country deserve election integrity?
You have election integrity (well if you ignore Republican gerrymandering). This has been found time and time again.
Because we still have democratic leaders refusing to answer for discrepancies still being discovered today in our la
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, thank a politician when that shit happens.
No, thank our own stupid selves, these people wouldnt be politicians if we didnt vote for them.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA
"for violations of the Twitter Rules on spam and platform manipulation."
Re:I'm not sure what's going on, but (Score:4, Insightful)
> False flags conspiracies aside, this makes her a sketchy person.
That is a very big jump. It is also plausible that someone else bought these followers to smear her, there was no proof she did this. And it's probably a pretty easy thing to do. Looks like it worked though.
Does this also mean that if you want to silence anyone on twitter, all you need to do is buy them some fake followers while they are in the spotlight?
Wow, this lady is a lot. (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Wow, this lady is a lot. (Score:2)
Muslim subterranean lasers at exactly 180 degrees out of phase?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite of Jewish space lasers, is sanity and being grounded in reality and informed by facts.
The opposite of crazy isn't a different form of crazy, the opposite of crazy is sane.
Though as a Jew, I'm rooting for the space lasers tbh.
Re: (Score:3)
Except instead of going on about secret Jewish space lasers, she made allegations that have at least shown enough evidence that she has been granted whistle blower status.
Re: (Score:3)
Congrats on falling for fake news https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anything about the AOC parking lot thing being true/not but you're referencing Snopes as proof of anything? Aren't they the same "fact checker" who went after satire site Babylon Bee. At one point utilizing a wildly rigged "survey" that claimed that people were misinterpreting satire as news, where the survey in question completely rewrote Babylon Bee headlines/statements such as "CNN: 'God Allowed the Mueller Report to Test Our Shakeable Faith in Collusion'" into "CNN news anchor Anderson Co
Fine Twitter, great fantasy. (Score:3, Interesting)
In reality you get to burn taxpayer money on a pointless lawsuit which will be ruled in favour of Twitter on First Amendment grounds.
Just a reminder: Not all government whistle-blowers are level headed people with your good interests at heart.
Re:Fine Twitter, great fantasy. (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality you get to burn taxpayer money on a pointless lawsuit which will be ruled in favour of Twitter on First Amendment grounds.
It's not pointless, the system is badly designed. In order to get rid of the pointless law, we need pointless lawsuits, and an endless string of appeals.
Just a reminder: Not all government whistle-blowers are level headed people with your good interests at heart.
But this one appears to be.
Re:Fine Twitter, great fantasy. (Score:4, Funny)
But this one appears to be.
By running for congress just so she can overrule the first amendment protected privileges of a private company by forcing them to carry her language? Just because she blew the whistle on the government doesn't make her any less unhinged.
It saddens me to see what Americans think of "freedom" these days. Free to force other people to do what *you* want.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure she wasn't just a tourist behaving normally?
Except not stealing a podium, smashing a window or smearing excrement on the walls.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, the law had been put on indefinite hold until a court rules it unconstitutional.
This should be fun (Score:3, Informative)
A warning for our notoriously horny congress-critters ... don't try it, guys [wikipedia.org]!
Jones has had prior criminal charges in Florida. At the time of the police raid, Jones was facing an active misdemeanor charge for allegedly cyberstalking a former student and romantic partner and for publishing sexual details about their relationship online. She was fired from her Florida State University teaching position for threatening to fail her estranged romantic partner’s roommate.[44]
She had also faced prior charges, including felony robbery, trespass, and contempt of court, stemming from an alleged violation of a domestic violence restraining order related to the same ex-boyfriend, but those charges were dropped. Prior to that incident in 2017 Jones had been arrested and charged with criminal mischief for vandalizing her former romantic partner’s SUV, but those charges were later dropped, as well.[44][45][46][4]
Jones also faced criminal charges in Louisiana in 2016, where she was arrested and charged by the LSU Police Department with one count each of battery on a police officer and remaining after forbidden and two counts of resisting arrest after refusing to vacate a Louisiana State University office upon being dismissed from her staff position.
Careful what you wish for (Score:3)
It's not as though ... (Score:2)
It's not as though those social media companies disagree with her agenda. Heck, they've been disappearing opinions opposed to hers.
So, they are "on her side", so to speak. And kicking her off certainly isn't going to do them any favors in their preferred social circles. It's not going to get them any kudos from the sources they want kudos from.
Therefore, her violations of their terms must be super egregious to get them to kick her off.
Here's the real question (Score:2)
Will the con artist come to her defense to show the bias of Twitter against a political candidate? Will DeSantis?
What data was/is Florida faking? (Score:2)
I keep reading that this woman left her job in Florida because she was asked to report incorrect Covid data. What was incorrect about the data? What is Florida publishing now? In what ways does her data differ from what Florida is officially posting? I can only find accusations, but no information. And it has gotten hyper-political. It is quite frustrating to be overwhelmed with political articles when what is being debated is a matter of objective fact.
Re: (Score:3)
She was publishing corrected/accurate data for several months on a separate website. Wikipedia has details [wikipedia.org], so I can't imagine you've looked very hard.
Re: (Score:2)
She's going to kick some wrinkled right wing butt.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad time when a comment like that gets modded "interesting". No substance whatsoever, no argument; just vitriol. Shameful.
Re: (Score:2)
learning.
she has my vote.
she would not be quiet about the covid.
when she wins she has to move to washington.
that will serve her right
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:2, Insightful)
You are kidding, right? Trumpers won't even tolerate other conservatives who voice any disagreement with Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
The rot has set in so deeply that young conservatives are now turning on their own and splintering. It's the logical consequence of what happens when you start viewing the other side as being less worthy to vote than your side and disenfranchise people who would vote against you.
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you wanted everyone to vote, you wouldn't be passing laws that make it harder for people to vote.
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives disagree, but not out of some pathology about voting; we want everyone to vote
Bullshit. The underpinning of Republican's voter suppression is to make sure not everyone votes. They don't want that because, as we saw in 2020, when people vote, Republicans lose [rightwingwatch.org].
and every vote to count, obviously.
More bullshit. If "conservatives" want every vote to count, they wouldn't have filed lawsuits to stop vote recounts in 2016 [politico.com].
You might need to read more conservative voices and do less cherry picking for your agenda.
Show us which "conservative" voices aren't talking about making it more difficult for "those people" to vote. Show us which "conservative" voices are railing against the nearly 250 voter suppression laws which have come about in the past three months. Show us which "conservative" voices are speaking out against the unending lies by Republicans about "voting integrity". Talk about cherry picking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:5, Informative)
Where is your evidence of this? Yes, there are a small handful of cases of fraud, but they are spread across both parties, and even if you added up all the documented cases from across the entire COUNTRY and allocated them all to the closest race (Georgia) and treated them all as if the fraud was favoring Biden, it still wouldn't even be within an order of magnitude of flipping that state (and I'll remind you that even flipping that one state wouldn't be enough to flip the election).
Trump has had plenty of opportunity to present evidence of this widespread fraud. Crickets. His lawyers have been in court over and over and over again, yet not once did they actually claim to have evidence of such fraud (because unlike politicians, lawyers know they face actual punishment if they try to lie like that...just ask some of Trumps former lawyers how that worked out for them).
Put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, since you know for a fact that a serious crime took place, you naturally reported them to authorities, right?
Re: (Score:3)
You're either being deliberately misleading or shockingly ignorant. Your uid is close to mine which means you're a 20 or so year member
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed there's tracking numbers on the ballot?
No I didn't. If I had noticed, I would have checked to see if they were different.
easily detectable fraud, that was checked for and didn't happen.
Citation please.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. In general I don't expect the police to do anything with crime reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you could claim 250,000K reward set up by that Texas millionaire for evidence of voting irregularities.
He's not a millionaire. He's a politician, the money is coming out of his campaign fund, it's only $25k per incident, and the requirements for actually getting the money are rather onerous so he's probably lying that he intends to give any out (which I can only expect from politicians).
Re: (Score:2)
I got two ballots, and I know other people who got more than me.
I didn't send more than one in, but other people did.
Even if that were true (because only you know if it is or isn't), it supports the standpoint that there wasn't widespread fraud because your anecdote explicitly demonstrates NOT-fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
I got two ballots, and I know other people who got more than me.
I didn't send more than one in, but other people did.
And? If you think that’s all it takes to successfully engage in fraud, you clearly haven’t looked into this stuff at all.
Even if you had sent two in, they wouldn’t have both been counted. You’re marked as having voted as soon as your ballot is processed. Every state does it, and then they check if you have already voted when processing all other ballots. This is true whether you vote by mail, put it in a drop box, or go in-person.
Depending on the state and circumstances, they may dis
Re: (Score:2)
your anecdote explicitly demonstrates NOT-fraud.
I told you, I know people who sent in more than one ballot. You're attacking a strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you had sent two in, they wouldn’t have both been counted. You’re marked as having voted as soon as your ballot is processed. Every state does it, and then they check if you have already voted when processing all other ballots.
You don't know California voting procedures, so you are making things up.
You are utterly unhinged from the truth and it's depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
So you didn't think to contact the Trump campaign even while they were desperately searching for any actual documented fraud they might bring to court? Not one news agency itching for some sort of documentation of anything? Not even the local Daily Tattler? Not even anonymously?
You could always post your evidence right here on /. as AC if you like.
Or perhaps you DON'T actually know for a fact that there was fraud, but rather you assume there was.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have evidence that a single ballot may be fraudulent and by your own admission wasn't?
That has to be the single dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel no need to contact the Trump campaign, and less than zero desire to help them. That is doubly true after they lost.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go with you assume without actual knowledge that there was voter fraud.
Note, many people in many places got more than one ballot, but they only count one submission per voter.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen you change your opinion ever, so I expect no less of you now.
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:4, Insightful)
I told you, I know people who sent in more than one ballot. You're attacking a strawman.
It's worth revisiting your original post, because it doesn't say that. It says:
1} You got two ballots.
2} Other people you know got more than two.
3} You didn't send in more than one.
4} Other people did.
#1 and #3 you have first-hand knowledge of. For the rest of us, it's just an Internet anecdote. #2 is weighted slightly less for us readers, because it isn't even you, first-hand. It's you, reporting about someone(s) you know... who may or may not have been truthful with you. It's now two layers of anecdote deep. #4 you haven't invoked "people I know." I checked. At that point, it's just a random statement..
There are plenty of Internet posts in that format. You might not have intended it, but it's a common thing, where a reader is asked to accept a few thing on faith, then there's a sudden conclusion that doesn't spring from the first few statements.
To put in another way, your post reads as "I did not commit fraud, people I know could have committed fraud, fraud must have been committed."
Re: (Score:2)
You could easily change my opinion here by posting credible evidence for your allegation.
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally nothing I could say to establish credible evidence. You would find some problem with it. You always do.
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:5, Informative)
I can guarantee you they are different. That's why they are on there.
My wife and I both requested mail in ballots. Our city emailed her saying her ballot had been mailed, and they emailed me the next day. A few days later, her ballot showed up in the mail. Three weeks later, and 1 week before the election, my ballot still hadn't shown up, so I called the city hall to check. They checked the system and said it had been mailed and was not returned-to-sender, but if I didn't receive it I could come in person with ID to request a replacement. When I showed they had me sign a form saying they were invalidating ballot #1234 and replacing it with a different number. I showed ID and signed the document acknowledging this. They told me that if my ballot actually showed up, to just shred it, and do not use it because it had been invalidated.
I took my new ballot, filled it out, and put it in the drop box. Two days before the election, I ended up receiving ballot 1234 in the mail. I certainly could've filled it out and sent it back in. It would've been pointless, because they had already invalidated it in the system. If I sent it in, the best case scenario is they would've just shredded it uncounted. A more likely scenario is that I would've spent time in court, wasted money on lawyers, and gotten a pretty stern lecture from a judge. Worst case scenario is that I'd have some sort of criminal record, and possibly even be doing time in prison. Just check here:
https://www.heritage.org/voter... [heritage.org]
1328 proven cases of voter fraud, and 1143 of them ended with criminal convictions. I wouldn't care to test those odds.
Chances are those other people that you know got 2 ballots and send them both in didn't actually do so. In response to your other post, yes I literally AM calling your friends liars. People like to talk bullshit. What do you think is more likely...your friends were talking shit, or your friends confessed to you that they committed a felony for the purposes of having a nearly 0% chance of affecting the outcome of the election. You really think they committed a felony for the LOLs?
This would be the EASIEST form of fraud to catch. Mail in ballot are all very carefully tracked and attached to specific people. Remember all that talk about the supposed fraud being committed by people being registered in 2 districts? Those were actually cases where people moved, reregistered in their new district, and didn't get purged from the old district in time. Despite claims from Trump that this was proof of fraud, a number of states did verification on this to confirm that none of these people had voted in their old district. The reason they were able to verify that is because they have extensive tracking of ballot numbers, and can cross check against registrations across districts. If someone mailed in 2 ballots, it would be very easy to catch this.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course not. In general I don't expect the police to do anything with crime reports.
Like nobody is looking for actual voter fraud, good grief. People are getting caught, going to jail, cash rewards issued. There just isn't a lot of it. Nobody can cry there isn't enough incentive to report voter fraud right now.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/... [cbslocal.com]
https://www.texastribune.org/2... [texastribune.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You don't know California voting procedures, so you are making things up.
Had I known you wanted to talk about California, I'd have linked you to the California Election Code for mail-in voting procedures [ca.gov] sooner! If you check Section 3014 you'll find the following that corroborates my claims and refutes the idea that people are able to double vote:
The elections official shall keep a record of each vote by mail voter ballot sent to and received from a voter and shall verify, prior to counting any duplicate ballot, that the voter has not attempted to vote twice. If it is determined that a voter has attempted to vote twice, both ballots shall be void.
Likewise, Sections 3015 and 3016 corroborate what I said about people being allowed to vote in-person after signing up for a mail-in ballot, as well as that the state ensures no duplicate votes take place in that case. And if you want e
Re: (Score:2)
How many non eligible people voted in the past election? I’m guessing the number is below the noise floor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called fiscal responsibility. It's just not worth spending a city's entire budget to find out who threw that McDonald's wrapper on the sidewalk.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't want non-eligible people to vote. So yeah, no non-citizens, for example.
And yet, in spite of not being able to come up with any examples of any significant number of non-eligible people voting anywhere, we saw a wave of new laws in red states after Trump lost, especially in states that flipped. "Coincidentally", those laws also made it harder for eligible people to vote.
I still think it's funny (sad, but funny) that after the election, at republican insistence and great expense, Michigan actually found ONE PERSON who submitted a fraudulent vote, for Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservatives disagree, but not out of some pathology about voting; we want everyone to vote and every vote to count, obviously.
Then why do you keep re-electing candidates who, after election, practice voter suppression? That kind of thing might lead people who judge you based on your actions to believe that you in fact do not want everyone to vote.
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:5, Informative)
we want everyone to vote and every vote to count, obviously
How could you say that with a straight face? There is zero evidence to support that statement and about 250 pieces of proposed legislation from the GOP [washingtonpost.com] which supports the opposite. Talk about being in a bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
we want everyone to vote and every vote to count, obviously
How could you say that with a straight face? There is zero evidence to support that statement and about 250 pieces of proposed legislation from the GOP [washingtonpost.com] which supports the opposite. Talk about being in a bubble.
How many of those laws are voter ID laws, which are supported by a majority of both parties and all ethnicities? [medium.com]
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:5, Informative)
How many of those laws are voter ID laws...
Looks like about seven.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
Re: (Score:3)
Also, how many Democrats support closing down DMVs in minority districts? How many Democrats support disallowing alternate acceptable ID types on the basis on the demographics holding them? How many Democrats support making IDs require the excessive time, mo
Re: (Score:3)
No one's against voter ID if the IDs are provided easily to all voters. The big issues are when polling times are reduced, polling places are reduced, or getting a voting ID is difficult (often from an office far away that has limited hours).
Re: (Score:2)
No one's against voter ID if the IDs are provided easily to all voters. The big issues are when polling times are reduced, polling places are reduced, or getting a voting ID is difficult (often from an office far away that has limited hours).
How is that done with mail-in voting and which Democrats supported such verification?
Re: (Score:2)
I also found it objectionable that in Georgia, the highly successful and convenient ballot drop boxes were for all practical purposes banned (GOP claims they're not banned because they can still be put up, as long as they're guarded 24/7).
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course for mail-in it doesn't make sense, but I don't think anyone seriously has been worried about that. Mail-in ballots have been used for decades by people not able to vote in person including students and military
Honestly, it's kind of a non-issue. The risk of committing a felony and going to jail for years just to change one vote in an election is deterrent enough. It's just not worth the risk for the reward.
Re: (Score:3)
we want everyone to vote and every vote to count, obviously.
Just not in North Carolina? [npr.org]
The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" — then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."
The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I call myself a conservative and agree that I want voting to be free, easy, and accessible, but I’ve talked to others who outright said that they think it should be made harder so as to discourage casual, easily-swayed, uninformed people from voting. I’ve never heard anyone on “the other side” say anything even remotely like that.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with uninformed and easily-swayed people voting? After all, that's how Reagan and the Bush's got into office. Let alone Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
You read an awful lot of your own armchair psychology into that article. I think the wish might be parent to the idea in your comment. Conservatives disagree, but not out of some pathology about voting; we want everyone to vote and every vote to count, obviously. You might need to read more conservative voices and do less cherry picking for your agenda.
Justice Amy Coney Barret - What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?
Lawyer Michael Carvin (representing the Arizona Republican Party) - Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats, Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.
Re: (Score:2)
I read a lot of liberal and conservative sources.
I don't believe that the actions of conservative politicians "want everyone to vote and every vote to cou
Re: (Score:2)
That's a case of Sayre's Law [wikipedia.org], not anything about conservatism.
Speaking dishonestly like that is the logical consequence of what happens when you start viewing the other side as being less worthy to speak than your side and de-platform people who would speak against you. (To paraphrase a dumb argument.)
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:2)
That nice for you,but you see, the person I was replying to used the comments of one slashdot post to generalize liberals. I could provide dozens, if not hundreds, of example of conservatives turning on their own when they don't fall in lock step with Trump. Your one example otherwise proves nothing because I never claimed to describe ALL Trumpers.
Don't believe lies [Re: The GOP are a bunch of...] (Score:5, Insightful)
I am from a family of conservative voters, all with very different opinions on Trump and on several issues.
This is something that I wish more people on the left would understand: conservatives are not a monolith, and do not all think the same things; different people have different opinions. (I would also wish people on the right would understand the same thing about liberals).
With that said, though, polls show that a majority of Republicans believe that t "The 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump". (source [ipsos.com].)
I am sorry, but this is an opinion that has no support in facts whatsoever. I have looked at all of the statistical arguments people have made trying to support that, and they are absurd-- they are worse than merely arguments made by people who don't understand statistics, they are arguments made on the assumption that people don't even care whether the argument is right, they just want meaningless words that they can parrot. The argument assumes that all of the Republicans who were in charge of the election and in charge of election security were liars.
A majority of Republicans believe a blatant lie because they find it comforting to think that their side didn't really lose, and the fact that they believe a lie is far more damaging to Democracy than anything else going on in America. The fact that it is comforting does not excuse the fact that they believe a lie.
We also have progressive friends whom we respect but disagree with on politics. I think well I think you live in an unhealthy bubble.
Good. More people need to be able to discuss politics while respecting others.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the difficulty is that even if you manage to prove that Trump really won in one state, he still would have lost the election.
He lost by more than a normal margin of error. It wasn't close like Bush/Gore.
Re:The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberals are the most close-minded people you will ever meet. They won't tolerate any opinion other than their own.
[citation needed]
I will not tolerate opinions being stated as fact, but I will tolerate uncomfortable facts, if supported. Got any evidence that what you said was factual?
Re: (Score:2)
What liberals don't tolerate is intolerance, for good reason. [wikipedia.org]
Re: The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:3)
I've always wondered why liberals have no respect for rural cultures, unless they are foreign. This helps me understand the rationale. It appears to result in a catch 22 or self-fulfilling prophecy though, given the visible counter-productive effects.
Re: (Score:2)
A business that requires government subsidies to exist doesn't deserve to exist [wikipedia.org], right?
Maybe the same goes for cultures [taxfoundation.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The GOP are a bunch of cunts (Score:5, Informative)
Liberals are the most close-minded people you will ever meet. They won't tolerate any opinion other than their own.
Right. That's why conservatives have to set up their own media networks specifically designed to cater to conservative beliefs. Any news report that doesn't align with what they "know" is deemed to be fake news. It is all because conservatives are closed-minded to anything that doesn't match their notions of reality.
It is why Republicans make laws about what must be taught [washingtontimes.com] and can't be taught in schools [nbcnews.com]. It is why Republicans censor scientists from discussing things that conservatives don't like [sciencemag.org], and when they do have to release reports that don't match the right-wing narrative they bury it so that it doesn't get seen [cnn.com]. It is why when they should be focusing on the virus that is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and how we must find ways the economy recover, conservatives would rather to invent scandals like the incredibly few transgender athletes who want to compete with girls. It is why when conservatives are polled, they report that they hate Obamacare, but love the Affordable Care Act [nyacknewsandviews.com]. The only difference is the name "Obama".
Conservatives are so open-minded that they will claim something as fact even when GOP investigations find no evidence [cnn.com]. Conservatives habitually believe the opposite of what the experts tell us, like climate change, trickle-down economics, evolution, the link between smoking and cancer, etc. They make up conspiracy theories and peddle them by "just asking questions [rationalwiki.org]" (so that they are never forced to provide any proof of what they are saying).
With all of that, it is unsurprising that the people on the left and center of politics would routinely disbelieve what conservatives say. I can imagine from the conservative's point of view, this must appear like it is closed-mindedness. But when you have Fox hosts saying that they know voter fraud happened but that they have had a devil of a time finding actual proof [msn.com], then perhaps you might understand other people might seem so dismissive of your ideas. If you "know" something to be true before you have found any evidence of it, then you are peddling a conspiracy theory.
Liberals are open-minded to reality. If conservatives don't let reality get in the way of what they believe, then you can't really blame liberals for paying no attention to the lies. To ensure that I wasn't being indoctrinated into one set of beliefs, I started watching a mix of mainstream and conservative media. The problem was that it wasn't just a different set of opinions or even a different slant on the news of the day. What was being reported on Fox and conservative sites was just a completely different set of facts. The problem was that so much of what I saw being discussed on Fox was the opposite of the video and documentary evidence provided by mainstream media. When you have one side showing a video of the then-President saying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have broken more Elton John records. He seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I donâ(TM)t have a musical instrument. I donâ(TM)t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No, weâ(TM)ve broken a lot of records. Weâ(TM)ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look, I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We donâ(TM)t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical â" the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth, right? The brain. More important than the mouth is the brain. The brain is much more important.
And you disingenous liars claim *Biden* is the more sen
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to Rebekah Jones, or the Daily Mail as "not good, maybe pathological"?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to Rebekah Jones, or the Daily Mail as "not good, maybe pathological"?
Why not both?