264
Woodbury County supervisor's wife found guilty of 52 counts of voter fraud
(www.iowapublicradio.org)
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
264 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3067 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actually about 38:41 ratio. https://the2020election.org/voter-fraud-convictions-since-2016/
One that site looks sketchy as fuck. Two, even if it's right, convictions are not a magic view into everything that actually has happened. Three, that site is sketchy af
Edit: I just did some research myself and it looks like any respectable organization doesn't keep data about party affiliation in these cases. So I have to conclude your source is biased toward Republicans. I don't remember the last time I heard about a Democrat committing voter fraud, but I can easily recall many cases of Republicans doing it. And when I say many, I mean on a scale of memorability. This shit isn't happening often enough really to talk about and it's only notable because the people convinced it's an epidemic are the same ones actually committing the crime. Because like every other gop accusation, it's actually a confession
You don't hear about it because it's not discussed as much. The internet is very left as a whole and they don't mention things that don't fit a narrative. Like your response. It sounds like that site took the information from here https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud. Party affiliation is public knowledge. Examples are not hard to find https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/crime/2023/05/03/nj-election-fraud-democrat-governor/70174889007/
So... You're aware that the heritage foundation is one of the most right wing lobby groups in history and somehow you still think this point stands?
The Internet is made up of people. "Leftist" ideas are actually really popular, it takes effort to try to unlearn the basic morality we are taught by every major religion and belief system and how it's supposedly totally different than how government is supposed to work
This is one of the biggest problems we have on the internet. We only belive sources that align with our echo chamber. Why can't a conservative source be legit? You only believe things that are on left leaning sites then? That's pretty sad, you're missing a lot of nuance then. I'm a straight up centrist so maybe it's just easier for me to be unbiased and see where biases are. Sure leftist ideologies are gaining more ground, I'm not saying the right is the answer but it needs to lie somewhere in the middle.
If you believe a single thing that the heritage foundation says, we got nothing to talk about
I will say it's fucking hilarious that you think you're unbiased, given that you just admitted to believing conservative billionaire propaganda
Gathering a database of voter fraud is propaganda?!? Wow we are fucked as a society. Look at the database, I just picked one individual, googled the name, and bam. Here's the local report. https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/01/30/4th-resident-of-the-villages-admits-to-voting-twice-in-the-2020-election/
Just because you don't agree with a source, doesn't make it wrong.
It doesn't matter the source, verifiable facts are still facts
See the pesky thing about facts is that they aren't dependent on "agreement".
The source of information being awful matters. Your type loves to think you're open minded and no one else is. I have been through decades of giving anyone related to Republicans a chance. I gave them way too many actually. Spreading lies on the Internet is actually a terrible thing to do. It doesn't make you superior which is what you seem to think it does. Your sources are basically Fox News. 🤢
Exactly, the souce itself does not make facts, not facts. Well I'm not a republican. I'm sorry that you are unable to objectively look at things.
So since I posted a link to a site that you don't like, that has verifiable facts, that's me spreading lies on the internet? I do not believe I'm superior at all, I was mainly stating that voter fraud, when it rarely happens in the scheme of things, happens on both sides of the isle. That's it.
Dude, you're obviously a Republican. The heritage foundation is well known as a right wing think tank. You are spreading lies, and I expect it's intentional
If you were interested in the truth, you'd be most concerned with the vErIfIeD FaCtS meaning you'd be focused on the fact that voter fraud barely exists, instead of pretending it's not usually republicans doing it and "coincidentally" the only ones who care about it.
I searched Google for voter fraud database and that's what came up, simple as that. I looked through the database, searched a couple of the names, the local reports from local news outlets came up. Thus verifiable... Yes voter fraud barely exists, there were what, 1400 cases from 2016 - 2020 in that database. That's miniscule. I was only stating that in the rare cases it does happen, it happens on both sides. I didn't say it's not usually Republicans either, I believe someone stated 50:1 in that thread. I merely stated that it was closer to 43:37 in reality. So the 50:1 comment is trying to pass off lies but you don't care about that. You in fact do not care about facts unless those facts come from sources within your echo chamber. Take a step back and look at things objectively and put biases aside.
"put your biases aside"
Holy hell, I used it for a database. How can a factual database have a bias. You really are something else
I was once stubbornly a BoTh SiDeS-er too. I was between 17-22 then. When I actually learned enough to see the reliable fact patterns, I wised up. I hope you do as well. Because you're looking about like a Republican shill at the moment.
I still don't understand how pointing to a database, and agreeing with the sentiments put forth about how voter fraud is not a real issue, is a republican shill? If I was stating the there was an issue that's another thing. It's funny I've noticed the fact patterns too, and I've realized that both sides always show biases and you have to look through all that. If you believe only one side is telling the truth, you are very delusional. Both sides report as if the other is lying, you can't tell me that one side is always right, if so I don't believe you are much older then 22. Very nieve.
The source of information matters and I think you know that... There's nothing to argue about here
How does that make sense? So if two sites reported on the same football scores, one matters more perhaps because of who may own the site?! Are you serious? Reporting of stories will always vary based on news source, that's a given. No news source is unbiased. But when you are reporting just the facts obtained from criminal records, source doesn't matter because the source is the criminal records. Good grief you're dense. Next time you read a major news article check it out on allsides.com see how the right left and center are reporting on it. Maybe you'll be able to understand the nuance. Now you won't do that because you don't want objective truth, you want your teams spin and that is it. That's the beauty of not having a team, no blinders.
Give it a fucking rest. You aren't open minded or superior. You're gullible and inexperienced
Here's an example, my reply and our conversation is hidden in the comment section. Can't have any dissent from the narrative