Why so many people believe the election was rigged

[Timjoebillybob]

Literacy tests were not isolated to Jim Crow south... one of the first was Connecticut... to keep Irish immigrants from voting:

Literacy Tests and the Right To Vote - Connecticut History | a CTHumanities Project

Connecticut was the first state to require a literacy test of would-be voters and, even as the practice came under fire as a tool of discrimination, the state held steady until 1970.

connecticuthistory.org

It's interesting with respect to the discussion here, but much of the PR for the literacy tests was about making sure someone had a minimum level of intelligence. or eduction, so their vote actually meant something.

It was just a "coincidence" that it blocked a lot of Gaelic speaking immigrant Irishmen up north, or a bunch of illiterate former slaves down South... wink...wink... nod... nod.

Literacy tests remained in use, in some locales, until the 1970 Revision of the Voting Rights Act.

That may well be. But you specifically stated Jim Crow, not the old Connecticut constitution.

You are also the one who conflated literacy and comprehension with IQ in this thread. Education I'll agree with. As I stated I can't comprehend quantum physics, I'm no Stephen Hawkins, either in intelligence or pedophilic tendencies. But I believe I'm intelligent enough to comprehend them (quantum physics) with education. Or could have done so a few years ago, dogs and tricks as they say.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Based on what evidence? I never saw a single credible indication that Biden had a prayer.

I could say pretty much the same in reference to 2016 and Trump.

 

[KG1]

I could say pretty much the same in reference to 2016 and Trump.

HRC didn't think so and she got beat.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

HRC didn't think so and she got beat.

I'm sure the same applies to 2020 and Trump. 2016 I'm glad, 2020 not so much.

 

[greg]

 

[phylodog]

I could say pretty much the same in reference to 2016 and Trump.

At what point in 2016? Early on? Sure, but once it became evident that near everyone in D.C. was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of an outsider taking office I was seeing Trump signs, flags, banners, bumper stickers and hats pretty regularly.

It certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion and I was not expecting a win (but a definite contender) but the only people who could have been shocked by it were those not paying attention. He sure as hell didn't refuse to debate or make appearances and somehow manage to swipe the biggest victory in history.

The democrats can think Hillary for destroying their promising future. If that evil hag possessed the ability to consider anyone but herself Trump could have easily been beaten by a decent candidate.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

At what point in 2016? Early on? Sure, but once it became evident that near everyone in D.C. was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of an outsider taking office I was seeing Trump signs, flags, banners, bumper stickers and hats pretty regularly.

It certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion and I was not expecting a win (but a definite contender) but the only people who could have been shocked by it were those not paying attention. He sure as hell didn't refuse to debate or make appearances and somehow manage to swipe the biggest victory in history.

The democrats can think Hillary for destroying their promising future. If that evil hag possessed the ability to look out for anyone but herself Trump could have easily been beaten by a decent candidate.

Signs/hats/etc to me aren't a credible indicator everything I saw showed a Hillary win. I'm glad, hell more than glad ecstatic that he won but from what I seen prior to election night it was a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[phylodog]

Signs/hats/etc to me aren't a credible indicator everything I saw showed a Hillary win. I'm glad, hell more than glad ecstatic that he won but from what I seen prior to election night it was a snowball's chance in hell.

Different perspectives I reckon. I wasn't expecting it but I knew there were enough Americans who despised every fiber of that woman's being that it was possible.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Different perspectives I reckon. I wasn't expecting it but I knew there were enough Americans who despised every fiber of that woman's being that it was possible.

Unfortunately IMO the same with 2020. They hated Trump, not what he had done in office although there was that with the spin the media put on his actions. But him personally.

Hell to be perfectly honest I don't like him as a person, but do as a president. And that's what I'm voting for. Unfortunately IMO that's not the bulk of the voters. They vote for who they would rather have a beer (or chardonnay) with.

ETA and again to be perfectly honest I'd have rather sat down and had a beer, even God help me a Billy beer with Carter than a Pappy van winkle with Trump. Okay maybe the Pappy might be too much of a draw.

 

[phylodog]

Unfortunately IMO the same with 2020. They hated Trump, not what he had done in office although there was that with the spin the media put on his actions. But him personally.

Hell to be perfectly honest I don't like him as a person, but do as a president. And that's what I'm voting for. Unfortunately IMO that's not the bulk of the voters. They vote for who they would rather have a beer (or chardonnay) with.

I'm not sure. I think over half of the people who did and will vote for him again did it while holding their noses. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak, he's a vote against what the government has become.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not sure. I think over half of the people who did and will vote for him again did it while holding their noses. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak, he's a vote against what the government has become.

I voted for him the first time holding my nose, second time not so much.

I'm not sure. I think over half of the people who did and will vote for him again did it while holding their noses. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak, he's a vote against what the government has become.

If he's the nominee and I think he will be I'll be pulling the lever for him.

I'm not sure. I think over half of the people who did and will vote for him again did it while holding their noses. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so to speak, he's a vote against what the government has become.

I hope you are right.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

To be “racist” the intent of such laws need to be to prevent the targeted race(s) from voting. Jim Crow has nothing to do with it now.

So what if the intent of creating the law is to prevent stupid people from voting? To get that law they’d have to revise parts of the ADA. It prohibits IQ tests used to determine voter eligibility.

They would also likely need to revise the Voting Rights Act. As I understand it, there can be no "test" to qualify for the right to vote, but there can be reasons to disqualify.... felony or mentally incompetent (or adult guardianship) all of which are adjudicated (due process).

FWIW, everyone, unless their barred for very specific reason, has a right to firearms... doesn't mean everyone "should" have a firearm.

Ditto voting, IMO.

That may well be. But you specifically stated Jim Crow, not the old Connecticut constitution.

You are also the one who conflated literacy and comprehension with IQ in this thread. Education I'll agree with. As I stated I can't comprehend quantum physics, I'm no Stephen Hawkins, either in intelligence or pedophilic tendencies. But I believe I'm intelligent enough to comprehend them (quantum physics) with education. Or could have done so a few years ago, dogs and tricks as they say.

Literacy tests is how they were implemented, intelligence tests is how they were sold... making sure someone wasn't too dumb to be trusted with voting.

In the South, it was part of the "Jim Crow laws"... you challenged that it was only out of racism... same thing up north out of place of origin bigotry... no idea how prevalent non-English speaking immigrants were in the South, but I'm guessing "icing on the cake" might apply.

Still, intelligence/literacy tests were part in parcel of the Jim Crow laws.

We're a couple billion dollars in public education passed the days when there was the disparity of education which made those laws effective for Jim Crowe. Those days are multiple decades gone now.

Try Trillions of dollars, lol! But, unfortunately, levels of literacy are still very much a racial thing...

Literacy in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jamil]

I think we’ve managed to quash the nonsensical racist talk sufficiently.

Anyway, the sentiment about "tests" is that a lot of people who vote don’t know anything about what they’re voting for other than what the activist journalist says on NBC or Fox News. They don't know anything about government. Who each candidate is for a given office. What they actually stand for. How their proposed policies would actually affect people.

American society would benefit from the voting habits of an informed public. But such tests could not be developed in a trustworthy manner. The political leanings of whoever designs the test will win out. So rather than tests, it would be better to achieve an informed public through education, but even then whoever teaches, wins.

I dunno. The more I write about this the more discouraging it is. I'm talking myself into thinking we're just ****ed, so I'll just stop typing.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I think we’ve managed to quash the nonsensical racist talk sufficiently.

Anyway, the sentiment about "tests" is that a lot of people who vote don’t know anything about what they’re voting for other than what the activist journalist says on NBC or Fox News. They don't know anything about government. Who each candidate is for a given office. What they actually stand for. How their proposed policies would actually affect people.

American society would benefit from the voting habits of an informed public.

True 'dat! Amen, brother!

Unfortunately the decline in our eduction system no longer teaches that it's a civic duty to vote, and more importantly, to be well informed on who/what you're voting for....

But such tests could not be developed in a trustworthy manner. The political leanings of whoever designs the test will win out. So rather than tests, it would be better to achieve an informed public through education, but even then whoever teaches, wins.

I dunno. The more I write about this the more discouraging it is. I'm talking myself into thinking we're just ****ed, so I'll just stop typing.

As long as "woke" rules education, indoctrinating instead, yeah, we're just ****ed.

 

[Ingomike]

aa

They would also likely need to revise the Voting Rights Act. As I understand it, there can be no "test" to qualify for the right to vote, but there can be reasons to disqualify.... felony or mentally incompetent (or adult guardianship) all of which are adjudicated (due process).

FWIW, everyone, unless their barred for very specific reason, has a right to firearms... doesn't mean everyone "should" have a firearm.

Ditto voting, IMO.

Literacy tests is how they were implemented, intelligence tests is how they were sold... making sure someone wasn't too dumb to be trusted with voting.

In the South, it was part of the "Jim Crow laws"... you challenged that it was only out of racism... same thing up north out of place of origin bigotry... no idea how prevalent non-English speaking immigrants were in the South, but I'm guessing "icing on the cake" might apply.

Still, intelligence/literacy tests were part in parcel of the Jim Crow laws.

Try Trillions of dollars, lol! But, unfortunately, levels of literacy are still very much a racial thing...

View attachment 323891

Literacy in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All that shows me is that those that go to crumbling big city schools run by leftists do not get the education others get…

 

[Ingomike]

Anyway, the sentiment about "tests"

I have always thought this would be an interesting study; first find a cross section of voters that just voted, from far right to far left and a majority in the middle, verify the candidates they actually voted for, have them take a beliefs/values test, a test designed to align test answers with the actual voting records and platforms of the candidates.

Would their votes for candidates actually match their expressed belief/values from the test?

 

[jamil]

I have always thought this would be an interesting study; first find a cross section of voters that just voted, from far right to far left and a majority in the middle, verify the candidates they actually voted for, have them take a beliefs/values test, a test designed to align test answers with the actual voting records and platforms of the candidates.

Would their votes for candidates actually match their expressed belief/values from the test?

There’s some online tests that try to match your values to a candidate. I think they could do something like that with some modifications. So the test would have 2 parts. First would be values/beliefs survey, pretty much what they have already. Second would be candidate evaluation, what they believe about the candidates and their position on the issues.

Then the summary would sort of grade them on how well they evaluated the candidates, how well they match with the candidates they like best, and suggest which candidates actually fits their values beliefs best.

But again, something like that has to be honest to be any good. I'm not sure it could be.

 

[actaeon277]

I have always thought this would be an interesting study; first find a cross section of voters that just voted, from far right to far left and a majority in the middle, verify the candidates they actually voted for, have them take a beliefs/values test, a test designed to align test answers with the actual voting records and platforms of the candidates.

Would their votes for candidates actually match their expressed belief/values from the test?

I've done that to several Dems I know.
Asked questions.
Then told them they were Repub.
It was like I insulted their mother

 

[firecadet613]

Fraud, what fraud.



This doesn't happen every election?

 

[smokingman]