One more reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton will never be president of the United States: She's declaring war on the integrity of the already multiple-gang-raped election system that more than three-quarters of the electorate want re-tightened and restored:
Hillary Clinton will call Thursday for a national standard of at least twenty days of early in-person voting and for states to include nights and weekends in their extended voting hours, her campaign said Wednesday.
[Mrs.] Clinton will also call on Congress to act quickly to reverse a 2013 Supreme Court ruling allowing nine southern states to change their voting laws without federal approval, and for the adoption of recommendations put forward last year by President Barack Obama’s bipartisan commission on election administration....
[Mrs.] Clinton and other Democrats argue that Republicans are trying to make it harder for minorities to vote, since they’re more likely to cast ballots for Democrats.
How is it "harder for minorities" to show up on election day, show ID, and vote once than for anybody else? Why should it be easier for minorities to vote than for anybody else? I think we know.
In her speech Thursday, Clinton is expected to call out Republican efforts to rein in early voting, including steps taken by North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin that created more obstacles for some people to vote, the campaign said. She will also note that early voting can help alleviate long lines at the polls, an issue that’s been particularly problematic in Florida in recent cycles.
Requiring people to go to the polls on Election Day and stand in line for a short period of time, as Americans have done for time immemorial, is not an "obstacle," it is - or used to be - part of the duty of voting. It's supposed to be a serious responsibility in a constitutional republic, right along with being informed before you cast your ballot and involved the other seven hundred twenty nine days of each biennium so that the stakes on Election Day won't have to be so high. In my State (Washington) all voting is by mail, and I frankly feel like I haven't actually voted for several years, even though I technically have. Dropping off my ballot in a mailbox versus actually marking it and handing it to the polling place registrar (or whatever their title is) just isn't the same, is a lot more difficult to trust, and its vulnerability to voter fraud is exponentially greater.
Which is precisely why Mrs. Clinton wants the election system to be "loose as a goose" because that's the only chance she has at winning a single primary, much less the general election. And the Democrat Party, whoever they end up nominating, is going just as corruptly all-in:
At the New York Times today, Maggie Haberman and Chozick have an important article on a legal campaign being undertaken by “Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton” to challenge a welter of voting restrictions....
i.e. Safeguards.
....enacted by Republican legislatures around the country. To make a relatively long story short, the idea is twofold: to get enough litigation underway so that friendly judges can perhaps intervene to suspend or modify some of these restrictions....
i.e. Multiple layers of unconstitutionality devoted to a corrupt, tyrannical end - i.e. the Empress's lifelong dream.
....during the 2016 election cycle, and to identify HRC (who is expected to speak on this subject at Texas Southern University tomorrow) with an issue of particular concern to the minority voters she needs to hang onto in order to replicate the “Obama Coalition” in the general election.
Which she'd never do, because she's white and utterly lacks even Red Barry's political skillset, much less that of her husband, but musters a greedy sense of entitlement that surpasses both. Frankly, I don't think that's why she's pursuing it; she simply needs to be able to stuff ballot boxes as much as it takes to put herself over the top, and she knows she can't count on the Obama Regime to help her do it.
But while this nakedest of attempts at stealing yet another national election is already off and running, there is a rather large....obstacle standing in her way that could really complicate her efforts: A huge majority of the voting public has had it up to proverbial here with voter fraud:
More than three-quarters of likely voters think voter ID laws are needed in the United States, according to the results of a new survey.
The Rasmussen Reports poll found that 76% of people want the laws in place. Thirty-four states currently have voter ID laws at the polls.
Some Democrats want the laws removed because they think they're a form of discrimination, while conservatives would like them to remain in place — and want to see the remaining states enact similar laws.
Public support for voter ID laws was at 78% in 2006.
The Rasmussen data shows that 56% of Democrats support voter ID laws, compared to 92% of Republicans.
Further, voter ID laws have the support of 78% of people not affiliated with one of the major political parties, according to the Rasmussen figures.
Even a significant majority of Democrats want a honest, transparent, objective election system - which is frankly astonishing after the past fifteen years. But, ultimately, in a constitutional republic, you have to have that public buy-in into the system in order for the system to work, just as you need public confidence in the rule of law and everybody to voluntarily agree to abide by the same objective set of rules. Because otherwise, the losing side in national elections won't accept the results, and then start operating "outside the system," and down that road lies chaos, anarchy, violence, and all the other hallmarks of banana republicanism, and who knows what could happen then? Why, you might even see a gawky, radical, extremist narcissist demagogue with a funny sounding name get into power and systematically undermine and lay waste to the pillars and foundations of American society and sell it out to our enemies. And we certainly don't want anything like THAT to ever happen.
Again.
Do we?
No comments:
Post a Comment