anon_
2mo ago
The issue isn't the specific fact pattern (which, as you say, is a slam dunk for CU) but that anyone can manufacture that fact pattern. The charade of setting up a separate entity that receives unlimited contributions and then makes independent expenditures doesn't actually change the underlying state of affairs.
There's no set of rules that prohibits that kind of laundering without also sweeping in sympathetic plaintiffs like CU.
anon_
2mo ago
Sure. And asking how much security they provided requires addressing the counterfactual
anon_
2mo ago
This is effectively the argument that Lucas Critiqued.
In fact, it's almost exactly analogous to the Fort Knox example given in the article.
anon_
2mo ago
Right, which means all the (right-wing)-hyperbole-about-the-(left-wing)-hyperbole was completely off the mark.
anon_
2mo ago
Indeed. Who wants to be the trigger happy sniper that shot a local cop with a wife & kids.
anon_
2mo ago
Just to provide some counter-narrative evidence, apparently Crook had researched both Trump and Biden campaign schedules and had, for all appearances[1] picked Trump as he passed within 50 miles that week.
Note saying the rest of the post is wrong about incompetence, but as I see it, the guy on the roof there couldn't figure out if the perp was local PD and didn't want to start a friendly fire incident before someone deconflicting them. The fact that local PD was stationed in the building actually makes this narrative more plausible that maybe one of their guys would go out on the roof.
[1] Appearances, reality, etc...
anon_
2mo ago
What I mean is that the ruling mentioned appears to postdate the actions under question.
anon_
2mo ago
referred to money spent on this scheme as an "input" to writing a blog in some way that is not an accurate representation of the DC Circuit's interpretation of the law
This is kind of acausal right? The created a record that, in 2016, did not reflect the Circuit's interpretation in 2024.
anon_
2mo ago
I don't think most of the political class agree with every variation on retroactive enforcement, especially when it comes to children that grew up here.
And I think this can be earnestly true even in such cases where an individual believes that we should be stricter in enforcement prospectively.
anon_
2mo ago
Criminally, perhaps. But even if there's a statute of limitations, a person that's present here without authorization is (generally, YMMV, consult a good immigration lawyer) eligible for removal.
anon_
2mo ago
I expect anything they get out of a telecom is fine by the Third Party Doctrine.
Note that I at all support that doctrine, I would probably pare it back to say that anything an individual shares/discloses to a third party with the recognized and reasonable expectation that the party would not further disseminate it is protected by the Fourth Amendment. That language is stolen directly from Katz vs US.
Alas, that ain't the law today.
anon_
2mo ago
In 2020 two ballots addressed to myself arrived in the mail, then in ‘22 I got zero ballots for me but one for my dead uncle.
As I understand, if you actually submit two, one or both will be invalidated.
In fact, our elections folks are also super clear -- if you voted by mail but changed your mind, come into the polling station and they'll let you vote again and yank your mail-in.
anon_
2mo ago
Funny story, some folks were robbing carrier stores in order to use SMS OTP.
The way it worked was that some dudes would come in and make a loud ruckus about smashing and stealing things, and while everyone was paying attention to that, someone would grab the admin tablet and run off with it to remap phone numbers.
Beautiful piece of criminal work tbqh -- why bother social engineering or anything else when you can just hire the lowest-skill-imaginable dudes to create a distraction and just take the tablet.
anon_
2mo ago
Counting a ballot submitted at 9:05 when the polls were meant to close is a pretty good example of non-central.
Central to fraud would be something that changes the result as compared to an accurate count of eligible voters each of which voted once.
For example if central fraud:
- modifying vote totals
- individuals voting more than once
- counting ballots for a candidate other than the one specified
- ineligible voters voting
anon_
2mo ago
I agree, the groups outside the window feel like they are growing and should be more influential even if they are still minorities in absolute terms.
You're right the latter problem is probably untenable. But it does mean that we have to take "everyone would be a Bernie bro if the media didn't trash him" with a grain of salt.
anon_
2mo ago
I've asked at least 5 times in this thread for folks not to reply to a post saying X with "oh so you believe Y and Z and beat your wife". That seems like the minimal amount of non-antagonism required as well.
anon_
2mo ago
I think you're subtly shifting "invalid" there. A ballot that accurately represent the intent of an eligible & qualified voter who has voted only once is not invalid in the sense required to be fraud. It's certainly not central to election fraud, that conveys the notion of stuffed ballots or dead people voting or multiple-voting.
anon_
2mo ago
I agree, they should not be counted, perhaps allowing for some amount of reliance of voters on reasonable expectations. Obviously no voter should expect that a homemade ballot counts.
But it would still be true that the complaint against them would be “this is not procedurally appropriate” and not “this is not an accurate rendition of voter intent” or “this is fraudulent”. Those have specific meanings.
anon_
2mo ago
For the sake of reducing confusion, if you’re replying to their thread, it helps to distinguish.
And by eligible voters, I mean those which are entitled and not otherwise forbidden to vote.
anon_
2mo ago
Obviously not, given the current state of affairs.
Refusing to actually accept that people disagree on a key point is no way to go through life.
anon_
2mo ago
Also, I'll add, that JKF is defending a different position that sliders, but he could also clarify it because he's responding to a thread of comments relating to sliders.
For example, if he is advancing fraudulent-by-method-of-adoption[2] then he could also write "VBM is legitimate when properly adopted but not when adopted via procedurally-invalid means, hence I believe in Wisconsin it is illegitimate because ".
That would probably elicit a very different response. It would also clarify what is the crux of JKFs argument.
[ And if JKF believes that VBM is illegitimate even when adopted via procedurally-proper means, then clarify that would also be helpful! I don't mean to say he can only adopt the position above. ]
Maybe he wanted to do it, but he's got his military deployed in Gaza and the cumulative drag of that operation is already starting to pinch.
Not like this.
More options
Context Copy link