TRUMP 2020

[Dreadnaught]

McConnell and his fellow Republican senators are free to present an alternative bill or amendments to the proposed bills if those issues are the reason why they chose to obstruct efforts to shore up election security. Given their reluctance to uphold the constitution, I'm a little skeptical of their excuses.

"Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."

There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures, but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.

[Loki]

"Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."

There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures, but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.

Is "common sense" Dread-speak for "things I wish were true, but aren't supported by any evidence"?

[LittleFuzzy]

"Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."

There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures, but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.

Oh please. The GOP is vociferously against a federal level ID requirement. Because they won't be able to use it to disenfranchise legitimate Democratic voters. They want ID requirements but only implemented at the state level, and only in areas where they can carefully craft it to work against the other party. You don't see any significant effort by the party to implement voter id laws in California. They couldn't control it there. Nor do you see the GOP-controlled legislatures passing it in states like Montana, Alaska, or Wyoming, where it would mostly disenfranchise older rural white voters, i.e. disproportionately Republican voters.

[GGT]

"Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."

There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. [/b]I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures[/b], but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.

But US citizens who have presented SS cards and Birth Certificates to the DMV have ended up in ICE custody. So much for "common sense" measures.

And just because there's "no evidence" that voter ballots were compromised in 2016 doesn't mean it can't/won't happen in 2020. But we may never know, since the Trump administration de-funded the domestic terrorism task force, under-funded cyber security, and didn't prioritize federal election security. They still insist that Russian hacking was a Hoax perpetuated by angry Democrats.