Report: Mueller is Ready to Deliver his Key Findings - Polidicks

The "they" you're referring to is totally different than the "they" we're talking about. I'm not opposed to the idea that laws are directly made to hurt democrat voting. I'm sure it happens, and it seems that it was part of the motivations for that N. Carolina bill. I'm glad it was challenged.

You seem like one of those people who claim that it's "just a coincidence" that the "best man for the job" is white 99% of the time.

Let's boil this down as far as possible for you then. Is it or is it not a conflict of interest for someone to be in a position to purge voters fro the registry while running for public office? If you don't think it's an issue then please explain why it isn't.

if this is how you approach shit in life. No wonder you put with all of the GOP's bullshit. Cause any sane man would at least quit rolling over and taking it like a bitch.

If they were purged this way every year there wouldn't be so many people removed this year.

I'm really interested in how Sgman91 is gonna be able to mental gymnastics or misinterpret his way out of this one, he's truly adept at it. It's impressive, actually.

He'll probably just bail on the thread. That's what he usually does when someone corners him like this. That or outright ignore the post while picking at irrelevant niggles with other posts. Almost every time I ask him a straightforward question like this he chooses one of those two courses of action. And then he goes on to wonder why nobody takes him seriously anymore.

No, it isn't. I've stopped replying to him because there is no art or soul to anything he does because all of that, first, would require that he cares about anything he debates about. Since he cares about nothing, it's rather easy for him to take any stance because he'll refuse to firmly define his own and instead debate with you over the definitions of words because, in his game, he can never lose. He is that kid on the playground who has 'an invisible unbreakable shield and an invisible instant-kill sword' that allows him to win any imaginary battle because he can't even bring himself to the idea of losing an argument. What would be truly impressive is if he debated honestly and forthrightly. Even if he says he would, he never will, and will instead blame his 'environment' for being 'hostile' to his repeated falsehoods, dis-ingenuousness, and soul-less exercises of scraping off atoms of minutiae to ensure his argument does not 'lose' but instead morphs into a position where 'it's the right one and you can't prove it wrong'.

Were I in his position, I would admit I was wrong.

so basically he's a coward

Pragmatism isn't trying to find the golden mean. it's typically the exact opposite. What a completely useless observation.

As goes debating honestly? Absolutely.

@Sgman91 I'm waiting for an answer to this. I'm legitimately curious what your view on this is.

I've already explained it, but I'll do so again. They purge voters every year based on this policy. If they are continuing a set and normal policy, then it is not a conflict of interest to continue with that policy. If he is personally selecting people to purge, or making new arbitrary rules that didn't apply in the past, then yes, it would be a conflict of interest.

Well I guess if that's how you define a conflict of interest then you'd definitely see it differently than the rest of us. That's definitely not how the rest of us are defining it here though. Nobody should be in a position where their current position of power can be so easily abused for personal gain. It's just asking for trouble. I can't speak for everyone but personally I wouldn't trust anyone to not abuse such a position. It really doesn't matter if they're currently abusing their power or not. It's still a conflict of interest even if they're a complete saint. Thanks for at least answering my question.

Like I said to someone else, having people in charge of the election process who also have an interest in the outcome is a necessary evil. It applies to the presidential election, the state elections, local elections, etc. If you're arguing that the people in charge of these elections are automatically in a state of unacceptable conflict of interest, then I'm not sure what your solution would be. That would apply to basically every election. Sure, it might not be explicitly purging voter rolls, but there are plenty of other choices that the logic would apply to. How about deciding where to put polling states, or how many people to staff them with, or how to enforce security for voting, or any other number of decisions? They're all overseen by people interested in the outcome. I would say that the best way to control these issues are to have a set policy. These people shouldn't really be making decisions as much as following rules. If that's what happened here, and I see no evidence of the contrary, then he would be in the same spot as everyone else who oversees their own election, like every president in US history.

The solution would be pretty simple really. If you end up in that sort of position where it's a conflict of interst you recuse yourself. We have a chain of command for a reason. The person who it's a conflict of interest for would completely dismiss themselves from dealing with it while the next person down in the chain of command would need to. Alternatively we could solve the issue by passing legislation requiring an individual to resign from their conflicted position or to simply wait until they are no longer in said position before running for public office. Corruption is a very serious issue with any government so we shouldn't simply sit by and go "well there's nothing we can do" when a possible avenue for abuse comes up. Looking it up, apparently the position of Secretary of State for Georgia is actually an elected position itself anyways, though the current one was assigned the position by the current governor when the previous one resigned. That seems to be a huge flaw with Georgia's state government in my opinion. You can't possibly have an elected position whose responsibilities include supervising elections. That's outright asking for trouble even when they aren't someone running for a public office. Election oversight and election registry stuff should not be overseen by an elected official and should not be the responsibility of someone currently running for public office, ever. As much political influence as physically possible needs to be completely removed from the picture. Ideally it should be overseen by a committee instead and should probably be assigned by the governor and approved by the state's Congress instead. That wouldn't be a perfect fix for the situation but it would mitigate the worst of the problem.

Sounds fine to me. My point is simply that your problem isn't specific to this instance. It's indicative of how a large majority of elections work. Some executive office is in charge of elections, and that office is generally ran by a person who is interested in the result. If that sort of set-up was enough to assume that the normal policy decisions, as they relate to the election, were fraudulent, then we would need to question basically every election that happens across the country. Did this guy deceptively purge voter rolls? I don't know, but just pointing out the same sort of conflict of interest that applies to a huge number of elections doesn't really get us anywhere to finding out, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that he acted out of the norms yet. If that evidence surfaces, then I'll change my position. To be honest, having his 2nd in command would change anything anyway. The calls of bias wouldn't change.