Why Take Responsibility When You Can Blame Somebody Else?
The year’s highlights in buck passing feature petulant politicians, brazen bureaucrats, careless cops, loony lawyers, and junky journalists.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) this month blamed Republicans for preventing Congress from enacting legislation that would make it easier for state-licensed marijuana businesses to access financial services. Yet Schumer himself has played a leading role in blocking the SAFE Banking Act, which passed the House last year with support from 106 Republicans and has bipartisan backing in the Senate.
Schumer, who insisted that his own marijuana bill take priority and warned that approving the SAFE Banking Act would make federal legalization harder, wants reformers to forget that history of obstruction. Schumer's striking attempt to dodge responsibility for his own actions easily qualifies him for my annual review of the year's highlights in blame shifting. Here are the rest.
Omnibus objections. During the December debates over must-pass, end-of-the-year spending bills, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) complained that Democrats were "trying to jam in unrelated items," including "liberal nonsense" such as marijuana banking reform. Yet Congress has been engaging in such reckless lawmaking for decades, including the years when McConnell was the Senate majority leader, and the gargantuan spending packages he ultimately supported this year were rife with "unrelated items."
Sore loser. Kari Lake, the former local news anchor who was the Republican nominee for governor of Arizona this year, echoed Donald Trump's false claims about the supposedly stolen 2020 presidential election, promising reforms that would prevent something that never happened from happening again. When she lost to Democratic nominee Katie Hobbs, Lake predictably insisted that voters had not really rejected her, blaming massive fraud instead. A judge found there was no basis for her claims.
Motherless Kraken. Sidney Powell, the lawyer who doggedly pushed a baroque conspiracy theory explaining how Trump had been denied his rightful victory in 2020, suddenly disowned that tall tale when her baseless litigation resulted in legal sanctions. Powell argued that she had only been acting at the behest of her clients, whose wild claims were accepted by "millions of Americans."
Just asking questions. After Smartmatic USA, one of the companies that Powell claimed had participated in the international plot against Trump, sued the Fox Corporation for promoting her wacky allegations, the company argued that it merely reported what the president and his allies were saying. But as New York County Supreme Court Judge David B. Cohen noted in March, Fox News and Fox Business hosts did more than that, lending credence to Powell et al.'s fanciful claims, which they often presented as fact.
The Centers for Pain Relief Prevention. In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a revised version of its 2016 opioid prescribing guidelines, which had inspired arbitrary restrictions on the medical use of narcotic analgesics, resulting in undertreatment, reckless "tapering" of doses, patient abandonment, and suicides. According to the CDC, which blamed misinterpretation and "misapplication" of its advice, none of that was its fault.
"I'll gladly resign." After a gunman killed 21 students and teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, last May, the state's director of public safety, Steven McCraw, blamed the school district's police chief, Pete Arredondo, for the long delay in confronting the attacker. But it later became clear that employees of McCraw's department were complicit in that "abject failure." McCraw reneged on his promise to resign if that turned out to be the case.
Shots in the dark. On the night that Louisville police killed Breonna Taylor in 2020, Detective Brett Hankison blindly fired 10 rounds into the side of her apartment, shooting through a glass patio door and a bedroom window that were both covered by blinds. During his trial for wanton endangerment this year, Hankison said he was trying to "stop the threat" posed by Taylor's boyfriend, who had fired a shot at the cops after mistaking them for invading criminals. A state jury acquitted Hankison in March, although he and three other officers who were involved in the raid still face federal civil rights charges.
© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.WORKSCLICK.COM
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
ONLY because lying isn’t a crime, yet.
No comment on Stacey Adams? Wasn't that election this year too?
No mention of the winning AZ candidate being the one in charge of elections, or that the election counting was plagued with one screwup after another?
Shouldn't a libertarian magazine be a little more skeptical of government covering up for itself?
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Shouldn’t a libertarian magazine be a little more skeptical of government covering up for itself?
Do you have a link to this mythical magazine?
Definitely isn't this one.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
I don't understand the expectation of Reason providing a libertarian perspective, especially in a Sullum article. He's just a propagandist for the State as long as it goes in a way that favors marxists.
And allows him to air his TDS for all to see.
>>Shouldn’t a libertarian magazine ...
it's best to not have expectations above the comment button.
Thank you. I have taken MORE than just Journalism 101 and did so when there were actual RULES that HAD to be followed regarding which "page" an article landed. News...must be news. Opinion belongs on "Op ED" Pages ONLY and needs to be stated as OPINION.
We see statements like this "echoed Donald Trump's false claims about the supposedly stolen 2020 presidential election" made constantly by FALSE NEWS MEDIA and unfortunately REASON.COM is now falling inside that grouping. That statement was made regarding another person, in another race, in a state rife with "irregularities in voting" that in any third world would cause a revolution. In this media they lumped that person's grievance with a politically slanted statement regarding Donald Trump's last election debacle.
Sorry, but REASON.COM is losing me. I have been a reader for a LOONG time but more and more LEFT slant and political inference is made in articles not about the inference being made. I am pretty much getting over reason.com as I now begin to understand they are leftist propaganda too.
Just asking questions. After Smartmatic USA, one of the companies that Powell claimed had participated in the international plot against Trump, sued the Fox Corporation for promoting her wacky allegations, the company argued that it merely reported what the president and his allies were saying. But as New York County Supreme Court Judge David B. Cohen noted in March, Fox News and Fox Business hosts did more than that, lending credence to Powell et al.'s fanciful claims, which they often presented as fact.
I don't know if this cracks a top ten list for journalistic malpractice, though. We've seen much worse.
Seriously? Fox questioned the official narrative, which is verboten. REAL journalists don’t question the narrative.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Where's JesseAZ to whine about Kari Lake losing her lawsuit? Sorry JesseAZ that Kari Lake's bullshit lawsuit didn't go anywhere. But look on the bright side, Arizona's new Governor Katie Hobbs will be able to give pardons to abortion providers in the state.
Hey an idiot who didn't actually watch or understand the trial.
Man you trained seals act on a signal.
The state literally admitted to violations of state law but the judge ruled intent had not been proven. You take this as cleanest election ever like a good little NPC of the left. Lol.
I'm still glad that Katie Hobbs will be able to use her office to protect a right to abortion in Arizona.
And the idiot doesn't understand Hobbs isnt part of the legislature and has basically no say. She has to execute the laws passed.
You are doing really well here buddy.
No, she can give pardons to every woman that gets abortions in the state, and pardons to abortion clinics too. She can also make an executive order that stops the state police from investigating abortion clinics. Oh there is so many different creative ways she can protect abortion access.
First abortions aren't a crime in Arizona you fucking idiot. Mothers aren't being arrested. What the fuck are you blathering about?
And no, a blanket EO stating no investigations of a specific favored entity are not legitimate actions of a governor.
How ignorant are you?
After Roe V. Wade was overturned an anti-abortion law passed in the 1930's in Arizona technically came back into effect. There's a definite possibility that some right-wing DA in the state will try and use it to go after abortion clinics and their clients. Katie Hobbs has many ways to stop them should they try.
No it didn’t. It was put on hold immediately moron. The legislature is working towards a 20 week regulation. It won’t target mothers you fucking idiot.
Youre the reason why left wing MSM narrative pushing is so dangerous. You read a headline and treat it as fact with no inspection. Democrats rely on retards like yourself.
Well in case an abortion is performed after 20 weeks she can pardon the doctor.
So all you care about is not neutral execution of a law, but the favored dismissal for killing babies.
You sound like an amazing person.
Have you ever seen what a baby looks like at 20 weeks? You need 4 months to decide to keep a child?
Sometimes complications with a pregnancy are discovered after 20 weeks, complications that could result in permanent medical problems for the mother if she gives birth. At that point she might decide not to give birth.
Serious defects in the fetus are sometimes discovered after 20 weeks. Some so severe that any baby born would most likely die shortly after birth, or suffer in pain for a few months before dying. If such severe birth defects are discovered the mother may naturally want to terminate the pregnancy. It may be a form of euthanasia at that point.
Ahh. So you favor killing 95% of babies at 20 weeks due to the 3-5% already covered as medical exceptions under the law.
Truly an amazing person you are.
So are you going to favor killing children with medical issues at age 1 or above with the same rationalizations?
I can't help but notice that you've already been born. Did your family own slaves?
No, it wasn't the 1930's, it was passed in *1864*, when Arizona was a territory.
You also seem really excited about killing babies. Do you think that is a normal and sane reaction?
Abortions don't kill babies. If the pregnancy is terminated a baby is not born. If it was not born it is not a baby, it's still a fetus.
And the moron believes in the magical birth canal fairy. Amazing.
What DNA changes during passage? What changes?
"Babyhood" is not a function of DNA, despite your apparent assertions.
And, as far back as "The Silent Scream" movie, the terms used have always been manipulated to evoke emotional and visceral, predictable responses.
At first, it's a 'fertilized egg.' Then it morphs into a "fetus".
And then, purely for emotional leverage, it "becomes a baby," so that anyone can be accused of being a "baby-killer," as if they were lopping the heads off 6-18-month-olds.
So, please stop 'neurolinguistic-programming' us by using nebulous terms that don't have any scientific definitions, but are actually culturally 'defined.'
Unless you can demonstrate a generally-agreed-upon SCIENTIFIC Definition that describes the moment that a 'fetus' becomes a 'baby.'
Thanks.
No one said that intent was part of the requirement. I could not intend to completely change the person elected and still be so inept at my job that it caused that to happen. If I represent the government in doing so, then the government has caused an unlawful election.
First, the judge needs to be de-robed permanently and possibly jailed indefinitely or worse. Second, the next judge needs to bitch-slap the first judge and make sure he IS de-robed permanently.
I count no fewer than 6 grey boxes and 5 spams. That translates into a half-dozen whining, tear-streaked, cowardly, girl-bullying looter prohibitionists and impersonators sobbing that Reason failed to lick the blacking off of Trump's Ballys or passed up a chance to Tu the Quoque outta some godless librul versus zero libertarian subscribers. It's not as though Grabbers Of Pussy ever have anything intelligent to carp about. Surely six screechers are enough to cause a casual onlooker to associate Reason with superstitious nazi coprophages and televangelist Trilbys (which is the whole point).
"I count no fewer than 6 grey boxes and 5 spams."
Some commenters here really need to start their own "magazine." But then, it's a lot easier to throw bricks than build a house.
Blind obedience to writers funded by billionaires calling themselves libertarian is the true libertarian state.
Thanks for your opinion.
A couple of years ago a significant chunk of the commentariat indeed did just this. A large and active group formed a website called “Glibertarians”. Probably half of the active commenters here went over there. The morning links there are larger and more active than the morning links here. I hop back and forth as do some others, but most left and didn’t look back.
The paid trolls here make this area toxic and difficult to have substantive discussion, by design.
Glibertarians is not as good as the old The Agitator site Balko used to run for substantive policy discussions, but it is a solidly libertarian environment with a right-libertarian bent (but with a number of left libertarians running about). It is also notable for having a number of women heavily involved in both the website and the debate. Yeah, apparently female libertarians do exist.
There were specific events that triggered the move – akin to a church splitting over a single event but really as a result of a growing divide. But a big difference that was not really a precipitating event is they decided to leave the toxic trolls out. A prominent right-libertarian / conservative contributor was shown the door because he couldn’t get with the idea of civility in debate.
It makes for a far superior experience than dealing with shills and trolls who do not argue in good faith. And the political bent is open.. conservative authors are conservative, left libertarians are left libertarian. You don’t see a bunch of people being republican operatives pretending that their republican agenda is actually libertarian.
Thanks; just went over there and applied to the forum.
The specifically decline bots and Tulpas.
So far so good.
"...a website called “Glibertarians."
Very cool... checking it out!
Registered.
I've been a registered Glibertarian from the beginning, but I find it is too much of an echo chamber. Some of the commenters are great, but too many simply drone on about their pet hobby horses.
Why aren't you still commenting as Hank Phillips?
Pop quiz: what's the difference between a president who brags about grabbing pussies (but may not have actually done it) and a president who sniffs hair (on camera)?
For one thing, bragging about grabbing pussies is a weird thing to do if you haven't actually done it.
"They let me" is an important part of his statement.
Likewise we now know the FBI opened a file on the woman who accused Biden. Which one is scarier to you?
And touches shoulders. Not just sexual harassment, but sexual assault too.
They don't care if their own do it.
The ones that really piss ME off are the '"'m making $500 an hour doing data entry for Google or Amazon or whatever..."
Until Reason puts a filter on that spam, it's a pain in the ass to scroll past the dross to find the actual replies to posts.
What I wonder is, why don't they do that? And please don't hide behind any 'free speech banners' .... those "replies" NEVER have any relevance to the "subject at hand," and should be flaggable for removal by any reader or at least subscriber....
Who are you blaming for your TDS, Sullum?
-jcr
Fans of Trump of course.
Kari Lake:When she lost to Democratic nominee Katie Hobbs, Lake predictably insisted that voters had not really rejected her, blaming massive fraud instead. A judge found there was no basis for her claims.
This is false. An Obama era judge found no basis and even sanctioned her. The state Judge did not and despite losing was not sanctioned. During the trial the state admitted to violating election laws but it was ruled there was no proven intent.
Sullum, when you lie so willingly it makes the rest of your bullshit questionable as well. This trial was well covered and you didn't even know it happened or the outcome.
Yeah, she demonstrably proved significant issues with the election. Major issues with a shocking lack of string of custody for ballots, intentional issues with the printing of ballots to insure that they are not readable --- but because nobody admitted in an email they did it on purpose, lo and behold, it was "unintentional".
Reason should be quite upset over elections runs this poorly, but instead, you seem mad at somebody noticing them.
None of those changes affected the outcome of the election. What is it with you MAGA types that causes you to detach from reality?
Are you retarded? How did none of those things affect the election?
They had testimonies of people who left before voting due to line. To voters who threw their ballots out and didn't go to a second vote center. Voters who did return to a 2nd vote center and weren't properly checked put of the first so were unable to vote.
Chain of custody is missing from half a million ballots.
Originals for ballot 3 boxes were not retained after duplicated. A gross violation.
Yet your claim is nothing was affected.
So I ask. Are you retarded?
Do not insult retards by lumping this leftist turd in with them.
There are 2 leftist morons here today. Stunningly ignorant to even basics of reality.
Could be shrike trolling though.
And I'll say again, you live in your own reality detached from actual reality,
It's not fraud if people give up. Or so I heard about Georgia in majority democratic areas. Don't blame the state if you're too stupid and impatient to stand in line.
And most of your claims are made by "pollsters" and aides that make the Kraken look reasonable.
Listening to people like you is like listening to flat earthers. You ignore any evidence that doesn't reinforce your tinfoil conspiracy theories.
Come back when you can convince anyone outside OAN that you're right.
This was all presented at trial with the defense (election officials) admitting to it dumbass. The trial was public and streamed. Educate yourself retard.
What pollsters did I cite? They have affidavits of voters effected. It wasn’t just pollsters.
The rest of the discussion was admitted to by the state at trial. Are you even aware of that? Or are you retarded?
The only one here ignoring admitted to evidence is you in defense of the DNC and broken elections that help that team.
It was presented at the trial. And rejected by everyone that wasnt dropped on their heads at birth.
Notice she lost? Keep on ignore truth. You're in such good company with your hero donald trump.
No. It wasn't rejected by anyone. THe defense admitted to it. The judge ruled solely on provable intent. Not the fact that the items admitted to happened. His ruling in sanctions even states that.
Again. The records of the trial and ruling are public. Youre just looking like a partisan sheep now, ignorant of all actual facts.
The court also ruled that because the expert witnesses gave a range of possible impact that showed that it was probable that the election had been flipped, but that it was also possible that Lake would have lost anyway (not likely, but possible), they lost on that point.
The judge ruled that the standard is that unless it is proven to a high standard that the election would have turned out the other way, the results cannot be overturned.
This eliminates any sort of challenge short of going out and finding every single vote that was suppressed and getting an affidavit as to what their vote would have been, and proving that this overcomes the margin. (And that the suppression was not only intentional, but it was intended to alter the outcome of the election).
Really the only way to meet this standard in Arizona is going to be to find someone printing a bunch of fraudulent ballots and having them admit they did it to rig the election. If you want integrity in Arizona you have to get it before the results are certified. They will not be tossing out an election result after that.
The problem is theblaw is based on ballot validity while the defense and the judge focused on intent.
If the judge truly followed the law the 300k ballots absent chain of custody should be thrown out. If election officials can’t determine which ballots they were, then what is the remedy? Some would say a new election as was done once in Arizona due to similar issues.
The problem is the judge didn’t want to order a new election so he focused solely on intent.
The thing that truly pisses me off is the judge also didn’t require future elections to fix the issues found. They can essentially do the same thing in 24 without any fear as long as they don’t send an email explicitly stating intent.
Welcome to the USSA
Is that you Sullum?
"None of those changes affected the outcome of the election."
Tens of thousands of ballots with no known origination? Ballots set up to specifically be unable to be counted by tabulation machines? Those won't change outcomes?
Are you serious?
Listen Rudy, no one believed you when you were at the landscape business and no believes you now either,
You've already admitted you are completely ignorant to the facts here.
"Every single witness before the Court disclaimed any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence,"
You cited the intent part of the defense. Not the evidence that it occurred. Do you wish to try again?
"Give us clear and convincing evidence of intentional fraud" may be the legal standard for convicting people, but it is the wrong standard for whether citizens can trust elections.
The correct standard is that election officials must give us "clear and convincing evidence that the election was lawful and the outcome was accurate". If they can't do that, voters and citizens have reasonable doubts in the outcome and government becomes illegitimate.
Ah, thanks. Forgot your name was "muted"
Yeah, that is dumb. Someone changed the font on printers in heavily republican areas *on the day of the election*. This resulted in what democrats have called the worst of worst crimes for decades .. voter suppression. Only in heavily republican areas, on election day, in the largest county in the state.
The judge found all of this to be true, but found that it did not reach the threshold of proving intent.
With the standard laid out, it is clear that once the election is over, it is over in Arizona. Unless several key conspirators have a change of heart and come forward to admit the conspiracy, you could never reach the threshold.
There were several legitimate complaints about the conduct of the election, but the printer one is pretty much an iron lock... But once the election is certified, the results cannot be overturned without ironclad proof not only that there were criminal violations of election law that would definitely overturn the result (not maybe), but also that the violations were done with the intent of rigging the election.
Bonus... In this case the winning candidate was the one who had to decide whether to investigate any issues with the election and who certified the results. So... Yeah.
Extra bonus.. I didn't really know anything about the details of the Arizona race... Pretty distant for me... But on election day I was chanel flipping and I caught Rachel Marrow talking about it on MSNBC. I stopped because "wow, I thought she was gone".
They had a reporter doing a live standup from a polling place in a shopping mall in.. you guessed it... Maricopa county. The reporter was asking enthusiastic republican voters if they were going to be deterred by long lines. Several had been in line for about 2 hours, they said. They said they were in high spirits and would not be deterred.
It struck me as odd. It was early in the day. And MSNBC had reporters on the scene... And they were pushing a narrative of "these people are happy to wait". It was glaring that this is what they wanted the message to be.
It struck me as doubly odd because the usual MSNBC trope is to find some single polling station with a long line and claim racism and voter suppression. So it was unusual.
I wrote about it on the day, texting my friends, and that evening I posted my observation here.
It seemed clear to me that something was up. Why would MSNBC know that they needed to do live stand-ups from a republican area shopping mall in Arizona? Before there was even a known issue? Were they psychic?
Or was this a psy-op designed to pre-bunk any claims about the election?
On election day, before we knew which candidate would win in a race that was razor thin, even a casual observer could see signs that something big was afoot. And we also know that there is a national mechanism for planting stories like this in advance - specifically about election issues.
One would think that an alternative press interested in issues of liberty and good governance would find this loose thread significant and begin pulling.
But no... For the most part they are happy to ridicule those who notice the loose thread.... Unless you head over to the substack cabal of disaffected liberals surrounding Glenn Greenwald. And it isn't hard to perceive a widespread campaign directed at discrediting that crew as some kind of far-right group of dubious pedigree and dubious intentions.
"It struck me as doubly odd because the usual MSNBC trope is to find some single polling station with a long line and claim racism and voter suppression. So it was unusual."
Silly, Republicans cannot be the victims of racism.
The funny part is the defense also admitted those types of issues were also part of the last 3 elections in Maricopa. They never fixed it. If you align it against prior elections that is when Maricopa went from heavily red around 60% to slightly blue at 50% since the admitted to elections issues occurred.
That was a big issue I was only tangentially aware of. Apparently Lake sued to get transparency about an election she won ... And was denied.
That lends some weight to her arguments. You can't really say it is whining when you lost if you do it after a win.
Also significant to me... She was banned from social media, even as a candidate on the top of a state ticket. She was so severely banned that one of the largest political channels on YouTube (six million subscribers) was shut down 2 weeks before the election for the crime of having her on as a guest.
This looks even more nefarious in the aftermath of the Twitter files in which we see that these bans and shadow bans are not merely an exercise of personal political bias, but actually a coordinated effort from inside the security state of the federal government.
Hobbs has also had FOIA releases showing her coordinating with social media as she was running for her office citing her position as secretary of state.
Now do 2016.
We can't know whether it affected the outcome of the election because it is impossible to audit the election.
This has nothing to do with "MAGA". Election officials must be able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the election was carried out according to the law and that the outcome is accurate. If they cannot do that, by definition, voters have "reasonable doubts" and the election needs to be thrown out. That's true regardless of who wins or loses.
You apparently want Americans to accept election results even though there is reasonable doubt.
As a legal matter I don't quite understand the judge's ruling. The defendants testified that they had broken the law at times and in places that put Lake at a disadvantage. But claimed that their intentions were good because the plaintiff could not provide some smoking gun evidence of a conspiracy to defraud. The judge bought the argument. I have no idea if there is any statute or case law to support this decision but it essentially says that violating state law and possibly changing the outcome of an election is legal as long as it can't be proven that their actions were malevolent. Kinda creates a mens rea standard for anyone challenging election officials. Pretty scary if you think about it.
"intentional issues with the printing of ballots to insure that they are not readable"
Huh? Cite?
We all heard about problems with the printers in Arizona ... in their most recent election. Are you saying Sidney Powell predicted, and proved, this election problem would happen more than two years in advance?
Mike, AZ reprinted 19 inch ballots on 20 inch paper (no reason why and it could not be done accidentally) and it guaranteed that they would be unable to be counted by tabulators.
They've done it, per their own sworn testimony, for years now.
Mike is ignorant to basic facts. But he will opine anyways.
Also the changes were made day of in person voting.
And some Arizona ballots being printed on 19” paper caused votes to be miscounted in the 2020 Presidential election, and Sidney Powell, before the 2022 elections, raised the issue in one of her lawsuits or in a press conference or something? Cite?
They admitted to the same issue happening the prior 2 elections during the 2 day trial.
Before opining learn basic facts. Thanks.
"And some Arizona ballots being printed on 19” paper caused votes to be miscounted in the 2020 Presidential election, and Sidney Powell, before the 2022 elections, raised the issue in one of her lawsuits or in a press conference or something? Cite?"
Sworn testimony by the state in the trial suffice for you?
Intent or even actual miscounts should not be necessary to throw out an election and redo it.
As citizens, we have a right to expect that we can verify beyond a reasonable doubt that elections are free and fair. "Trust us" or "oops we screwed up" don't cut it.
The principle should be that if election law was violated OR if the election cannot be reliably and publicly audited, the election should be thrown out and repeated. In addition, the people running the election should be punished and barred from ever working in that capacity again.
Vote everyone out. It’s not supposed to be a career.
"It’s not supposed to be a career."
Same as working in fast food, but it happens.
We know that progressive utopia is based on eliminating responsibility, but who knew that Reason-style libertarian utopia has the same goal?
why write at a libertarian site when there are so many suiting your leftist slants?
Because these are libertines, not libertarians who've taken over Reason. As long as it's sex work, food trucks, open borders, and weed, it's OK.
and to be fair I really don't care I'm here for the camaraderie but wow sometimes the articles come straight out of Left Field
By the way. Should I point out Sullum and Reason had a half dozen articles blaming Trump for gop election losses?
Although Kari Lake is clearly a loon; and although the election was not "stolen" from her via massive fraud; nevertheless, Arizona had massive problems with their ballot handling, processing and counting with unrefuted evidence presented during the court trial. Just because a judge ruled against her doesn't mean there were no problems. Very few of us trust "judges" any more. The only question is whether the problems with improperly counted defective ballots favored one candidate or the other, or whether the mistakes were neutral across the board. If only red precincts had miscounts, then it clearly favored the Democrat candidate whether intentionally or accidentally.
The focus on provable intent is a distraction to the point of valid ballots which the judge essentially ignored.
>>focus on provable intent is a distraction
yes.
What kind of problems are you conjecturing. There were problems but did they somehow stop someone’s vote from being counted?
Sounds like FUD.
Argumentation from ignorance seems to be your forte. Yes. There are people shown through affidavits as having not voted. Some left after the problems. Some were improperly checked out and were not allowed to vote at a 2nd location.
I detect a certain lack of self-awareness...
Likewise. "Junky journalists"...
that includes Mr. Sullum here with his TDS (or is that now RDS?).
YES... YES indeed.
Speaking of "blaming someone else" where's the push for AUTHENTIC elections?? TDS-addled FOS blamers seem to completely disconnect their blame-game from any solution what-so-ever... The 'blame' seems to be the entire game.
Do blamers want to AUTHENTICATE elections???
No... They just want to play the blame-game all day long.
Re: Kari Lake
Maricopa County shut down voting machines.
Ballots were not counted at voting centers as required by law.
Took over a week to count.
No chain of custody docs as required by law.
Judge dismisses the lawsuit.
What level of corruption needs to occur in order for people to say that's enough?
I expect Reason to do a better job of digging into the facts and exposing the truth rather than just rely on a judge's ruling. Why don't you bring her on for an interview?
Um, that's a trick question, right?
Starting something new is always difficult, but if we are talking about trading, now there are all conditions for beginners. Also, you can always read resources like https://sites.suffolk.edu/learnblog/2022/04/19/forex-trading-for-beginners-in-2022-a-brief-knowledge/ for some tips and tricks that can help you avoid many mistakes when you start trading.