Proxy 404
Well-known member
what more needs to be done?what can we do?
United States Desantis cracks down on voter fraud ahead of elections
- Thread starter Proxy 404
- Start date
what more needs to be done?what can we do?
No, I just think that these felons/ex-felons were dumbasses who didn't read up on what the new law actually said.
I'll believe our elections are secure when every race is fully audited, all the 2020 races included, and we have proof positive that election fraud is not tipping any scales.
King Arts
Well-known member
Actually no they don’t the law should be simple so people can’t be “tricked” into it.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
'the dirver's license place' instead of the DMV. Yeah...
If I were a felon, just saying, and there was something affecting me as immensely as obtaining the right to vote after my sentence has been served, you bet your bottom dollar I'd read it.
Ignorance is not a defense against breaking the law. Which is weird because the police don't have to know what laws they're enforcing if any when they arrest you.
Also @King Arts , I agree with you that the law should be simple and straightforward (At least common law), but even when the law in question is simple, straightforward, and only seven pages long, people will still listen to the TV man, instead of doing their due diligence, and call it the 'Don't Say Gay Bill' even when it doesn't actually say that, or even imply that. It just stops the 'and that's when I knew I had to teach them about LGBTQI2AA+ and how to safely fist another person's asshole' gay-ness.
Shit like that is why the right to vote should be earned, not just given out freely.
If I were a felon, just saying, and there was something affecting me as immensely as obtaining the right to vote after my sentence has been served, you bet your bottom dollar I'd read it.
Ignorance is not a defense against breaking the law. Which is weird because the police don't have to know what laws they're enforcing if any when they arrest you.
Also @King Arts , I agree with you that the law should be simple and straightforward (At least common law), but even when the law in question is simple, straightforward, and only seven pages long, people will still listen to the TV man, instead of doing their due diligence, and call it the 'Don't Say Gay Bill' even when it doesn't actually say that, or even imply that. It just stops the 'and that's when I knew I had to teach them about LGBTQI2AA+ and how to safely fist another person's asshole' gay-ness.
Shit like that is why the right to vote should be earned, not just given out freely.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
No, my dude, what you should do, is your own due diligence. If you want to vote, you should find out who(if you) gets to vote in your state and federal elections. Because that is what responsible citizens do.
The fact that a bunch of people who should be subject matter experts got people who can't vote legally, to register and commit voter fraud is one of many reasons why you should put in the work.
The overwhelmingly most bureaucrats don't give a flying fuck about you.
King Arts and the rest of you shouldn't believe me any more than the TV man, because I'm Just Some Random Internet Goon, when it comes to the afore mentioned bill. Because if you are a responsible citizen and you care about something, you should do your best keep up to date on the laws affecting it.
If you aren't a responsible citizen, well, whatever, don't have fun.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
How so?
King Krávoka
An infection of Your universe.
Why did you use an irrelevant embedding service to post this?
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
Sooooo... when do they go for the clerks who encouraged them and the clerks who signed off on them?
Like sure, they didn't double check but there's at least a few clerks who enabled it aren't there?
Like sure, they didn't double check but there's at least a few clerks who enabled it aren't there?
King Arts
Well-known member
Why are you virtue signaling about the law, when the prosecutor in the article said that the crime requires willfulness, aka doing it on purpose. If you unknowingly are doing it it's not a crime.
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
Because ignorance is not a defense? Like given all the precedent, which law is heavily reliant on. As a lesser example, saying 'I didn't know the speed limit was 35 when I was doing 40 because I'm new to the area' will not get you out of ticket or necessarily a fine. Or trying to sell your craft beer in a dry county without ever realizing the sale of booze is prohibited and getting caught. It's still a crime. Or having moved to say New Hampshire from a state where it's actually legally okay to fuck animals, like Hawai'i (which doesn't have any formal prohibition but probably still gets prosecuted under animal abuse but is still technically legal last I knew), and then not know that fucking sheep isn't okay anymore, you're still guilty of a crime if the evidence holds up.
There are also murder laws where you can kill someone without knowing it, without willing it, and still end up a convicted murderer. It usually requires some form of negligence, but there's a big gap between willful negligence and 'never had to before' negligence. I mean it's negligent to not look both ways before you cross the street, if a car owner swerves to avoid you when you just walk right out into the street crosswalk or not and dies in the crash... Definitely an argument there.
If voter fraud in particular requires willfullness, knowledge that you are doing something fraudulent. than that's an exception. Probably fraud in general requires willful fraudulence. I could believe that. Makes sense. This crime requires willfulness.
I was also more signaling that people don't bother to read the law anyways, so the law being simple and straightforward is kinda pointless. And that I still believed the law should still be simple and straightforward. Further, I was tossing shade at police officers and the absolute joke that is they can be ignorant and still arrest you because they think you are committing a crime, but you're expected to know the law like the back of your hand, because ignorance is not a valid excuse in the court of law.
There are also murder laws where you can kill someone without knowing it, without willing it, and still end up a convicted murderer. It usually requires some form of negligence, but there's a big gap between willful negligence and 'never had to before' negligence. I mean it's negligent to not look both ways before you cross the street, if a car owner swerves to avoid you when you just walk right out into the street crosswalk or not and dies in the crash... Definitely an argument there.
If voter fraud in particular requires willfullness, knowledge that you are doing something fraudulent. than that's an exception. Probably fraud in general requires willful fraudulence. I could believe that. Makes sense. This crime requires willfulness.
I was also more signaling that people don't bother to read the law anyways, so the law being simple and straightforward is kinda pointless. And that I still believed the law should still be simple and straightforward. Further, I was tossing shade at police officers and the absolute joke that is they can be ignorant and still arrest you because they think you are committing a crime, but you're expected to know the law like the back of your hand, because ignorance is not a valid excuse in the court of law.
Quite frankly, didn't do my best reading, that first go around. I'm 90% sure I'd just woken up. Which is when I do most of my forum posting. I would probably improve my responses if I waited.
Edit: This is also a pretty clear case of 'doing something.' They did vote illegally, that's pretty clear, but voter fraud seems pretty contested. I certainly don't give much of a fuck, for all that I don't think murders or sex offenders should have the vote, about random single voter voter fraud. I'm much more concerned about people voting seven or eight times, or the suddenly appearing large numbers of votes, or counters tampering with votes. That kind of shit.
Last edited:
Then you're not familiar with the circumstances of what actually went down. What the new law actually says, in its full and complete text, is:
"No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis."
The words there are plain on their face; by passing the amendment, the voting rights of eligible felons are restored.
However, Gov DeSantis stated that it was his opinion that the new law has no effect until the legislature passes a separate enabling law granting the Division of Elections the authority to create a new administrative process to verify the eligibility of each applicant. This is, IMO, ridiculous rules lawyering -- it's literally saying that, "We passed a law that says felons' rights are restored, but that law has no actual effect because it didn't give any government bureaucracy the authority to 'verify' eligibility."
I mean seriously, just imagine if any other right was ruled to work that way: "The law explicitly affirms that you have the right to do X, but it doesn't count since we didn't create a government bureaucracy to administrate your right to do X."
Also -- one can certainly argue that this is far, far too broad an amnesty and that all restoration of voting rights *should* be on a closely vetted case by case basis. But that's not what the law actually says. What I quoted was the full and unabridged text, and it very clearly says that it's case-by-case administrative action for murderers and sex offenders, and straight-up restoration for everyone else.
DeSantis' "interpretation" is an incredibly dangerous attempt to override a voter outcome that he personally opposes, and the fact that he's doubling down with criminal prosecution on the basis of this BS is beyond ludicrous.
Especially when he's not just arguing that the new law needs to be put on hold until administration is set up; he's arguing that the new law should be held in indefinite limbo because it *didn't create* a managing administrative authority. He is literally arguing that civil rights legislation is inherently null and void unless it creates a managing bureaucracy, even when no administration is actually needed.
DeSantis' "interpretation" is an incredibly dangerous attempt to override a voter outcome that he personally opposes, and the fact that he's doubling down with criminal prosecution on the basis of this BS is beyond ludicrous.
Especially when he's not just arguing that the new law needs to be put on hold until administration is set up; he's arguing that the new law should be held in indefinite limbo because it *didn't create* a managing administrative authority. He is literally arguing that civil rights legislation is inherently null and void unless it creates a managing bureaucracy, even when no administration is actually needed.