Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Who'd have ever dreamed? Felony news link

edited September 3 in Off-Topic
From the PRESIDENT: Voting twice is a felony. I guess the tRumpster ought to have checked with someone who KNOWS something? It's also a crime to encourage others to do it!
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/02/trump-encourages-north-carolina-residents-to-vote-twice-to-test-mail-in-system.html

Comments

  • The only people likely to try are his voters.
  • msf
    edited September 3
    I'm with Barr (sort of) on this one. You need to know what the law is in every state before you can say that it's a felony everywhere.

    It's not, though it is a crime everywhere. For example, in Maryland: "Except as provided in § 16-1002 of this title, a person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or imprisonment for not more than five years or both." Misdemeanor, not felony.

    https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/double-voting.aspx
  • So the 'Law & Order' guy is encouraging people to break the law. Good plan.
  • edited September 3
    Mark said:

    So the 'Law & Order' guy is encouraging people to break the law. Good plan.

    @Mark - You don’t understand. The executive “law and order“ order applies only to certain ethnicities residing in certain cities having populations that vote a certain way. It wasn’t intended to apply to white collar crime, obstruction of justice, grand larceny or voter fraud.

    Got it?
  • Why can't people see that this sort of behavior is just downright crazy.
  • Anna said:

    Why can't people see that this sort of behavior is just downright crazy.

    Which sort of behavior? The behavior of Trump or the behavior of posting about it and responding to the posts?

    In the case of the former I think it is clear that Trump's supporters ( I am not one) do see that this is crazy or "unfortunate behavior" but they don't care. It's already crazy to state that a mailed vote for a Republican candidate is legitimate whereas a vote for a Democrat is fraudulent. It's bizarre. Taken literally it is nonsense. But the context of such utterances is such that it can be said that "he didn't mean it". And that would be correct because it should be clear by now that Trump doesn't really mean anything he says or believe in anything except occupying the office of president. This is ok with his supporters. They don't want him to mean anything. I cannot explain this but that is how it seems to be.

    As to discussing all this on an investment forum, I don't think it's crazy but I think posting something for the purpose of disturbing others is bad behavior. I would like it to stop.


  • Ben said:

    Anna said:

    Why can't people see that this sort of behavior is just downright crazy.

    Which sort of behavior? The behavior of Trump or the behavior of posting about it and responding to the posts?

    In the case of the former I think it is clear that Trump's supporters ( I am not one) do see that this is crazy or "unfortunate behavior" but they don't care. It's already crazy to state that a mailed vote for a Republican candidate is legitimate whereas a vote for a Democrat is fraudulent. It's bizarre. Taken literally it is nonsense. But the context of such utterances is such that it can be said that "he didn't mean it". And that would be correct because it should be clear by now that Trump doesn't really mean anything he says or believe in anything except occupying the office of president. This is ok with his supporters. They don't want him to mean anything. I cannot explain this but that is how it seems to be.
    Some describe the phenomena as postmodern conservatism. Here, here, or here, for example.

    I think it's also the triumph of sensibility over sense. How people feel about what they think they know is more important than any appeal to reason. I don't find this restricted to conservatives. Read the eye-watering arguments of "liberal" anti-vaxers as one example.
  • WABAC, what are "anti-vexers"? You mean anti vaccine people? Some of them are in Q Anon! Maybe babies might be getting more vaccines than necessary. But I am not sufficiently well-informed to have an opinion. I just know I'd be dead many times over (so to speak) were it not for vaccines.
    Yes the phenomenon of accepting feeling over reason does play a part.
  • WHOA! I just read the articles at the three links WABAC provided. It doesn't help me understand any better but it sure describes very well what is happening. And it at least partially explains how someone can not be disturbed by the claim that there are "alternate facts".
  • An argument that Trump is dishonest and lacks integrity would find wide support, even among many of his supporters. The problem is his policies versus what the new dems propose. If I were a dem I'd focus on the character of the president and not his policies. That's their best shot. But I have a feeling that the dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot on that score.
  • @WABAC

    >> Some describe the phenomena as postmodern conservatism. Here, here, or here, for example.

    That third one is pretty funny, but it is the work of an undergrad. He gives his JV-level lukewarm libertarianism away when complaining about 'forc[ing] religious nonprofits to pay for abortive agents' and compelling 'a Christian baker to endorse a same-sex union'. The first two look more substantial, and I shall read. Though I do not know anyone who seriously proposes that hoary conservative values (responsibility, integrity, bootstrapping, small gov, blah blah) play any real or honest role in today's rightward political world, postmodern or otherwise.
  • Interesting that state voting laws are so diverse. This women in Iowa voted twice. Or maybe tried to vote twice and got a suspended sentence. https://desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/07/07/iowa-woman-charged-voting-twice-trump-pleads-guilty/459718001/

    While this women in Texas got 5 years of jail time (!) for voting on probation https://cbsnews.com/news/crystal-mason-texas-woman-sentenced-to-5-years-for-voter-fraud-speaks-out-on-felon-voting-rights/

    We discussed https://heritage.org/voterfraud/search
    Database previously, they might need to create a new category for encouraging double voting.
  • edited September 3
    I haven’t read WABAC’s links but I assume they are similar to the arguments Adam Serwer makes in
    https://theatlantic.com/author/adam-serwer/ Such as in: https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/trumps-ukranian-favor-what-impeachment/598849/
    “The Republican belief **that their opposition is inherently illegitimate** is one reason it does not matter to many Republicans that Trump’s allegations that Biden...”
  • @WABAC

    >> Some describe the phenomena as postmodern conservatism. Here, here, or here, for example.

    That third one is pretty funny, but it is the work of an undergrad. He gives his JV-level lukewarm libertarianism away when complaining about 'forc[ing] religious nonprofits to pay for abortive agents' and compelling 'a Christian baker to endorse a same-sex union'. The first two look more substantial, and I shall read. Though I do not know anyone who seriously proposes that hoary conservative values (responsibility, integrity, bootstrapping, small gov, blah blah) play any real or honest role in today's rightward political world, postmodern or otherwise.

    There are multiple takes on postmodern conservatism. This might be a better example of a libertarian take.

    After thinking about it a little more, this was the first article I read on the topic. A Process of Denial: Bork and Post-Modern Conservatism

    I found it online some years ago. I don't subscribe to any law journals.
  • First off - how can “Post-modern” even be a thing? But leaving that aside, I understand this conclusion as I talk like this everyday — “ post-modern conservatives have elected illiberal strongmen who disdain the very idea of truth and wish to establish a more homogenous nation-state that will remain oriented by internal capitalist dynamics. ”
  • it is droll, but I think more and more like that every day, I gotta say
  • edited September 4
    @Rbrt I had the same reaction. I'd heard the term "post-modern" in school. But there was nothing negative attached. J. Peterson uses it pejoratively to refer to contemporary relativists. The quotation you provided above is hysterical, actually. And in terms of Peterson's own frame of reference, "post-modern conservative" sounds like a contradiction in terms. An illustration comes to mind: I read it in the WaPo back in the early '90s. It was an op-ed.

    The factions, conservative and liberal, speaking generally and with a broad brush, start off with and assume two basic and very different frames of reference. Conservatives see Reality and Truth as an objective thing. If something's right, then it's right, true, correct and good. ...Liberals (post-moderns) understand reality and truth in subjective terms: what works for ME is good and true and real.

    Beginning with the Renaissance but especially after the Enlightenment, there was a "turn toward the subject," the individual. That sort of individualism can be seen at work in the American Myth of rugged individualism. Also in the Consumerist culture which society takes for granted these days. Burger King's old slogan is the perfect example: "Have it your way." This is to say nothing about the fact that the very concept of the Common Good has been killed and cut into pieces and thrown around for the buzzards to eat.
  • Crash said:

    From the PRESIDENT: Voting twice is a felony. I guess the tRumpster ought to have checked with someone who KNOWS something? It's also a crime to encourage others to do it!
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/02/trump-encourages-north-carolina-residents-to-vote-twice-to-test-mail-in-system.html

    I wrote that while voting twice is not a felony everywhere, it's a crime everywhere. I was wrong (sort of).
    [While] Intentionally "voting more than once" is federally prohibited in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and territories [52 U.S.C. § 10307(e)], ... New York law... actually encourages people who voted with an absentee ballot to cast a ballot in person if they are able. "The Election Law recognizes that plans change," the Board of Elections says in an explainer on its website. (Only one of the votes will count, elections officials say, because absentee ballots are set aside and not counted for voters who show up.)
    https://www.nytimes.com/article/voting-twice.html

    Something for New Yorkers (and anyone in other states with a similar law) to keep in mind. Thanks to Trump we now have advice to use a belt and suspenders approach to ensure that our votes are tabulated as we intend. Not double counted, but also not missed.
Sign In or Register to comment.