Hey Dems, We Got Your Election Reforms Right Here

Kurt Schlichter - Jan. 10, 2022

As shocking as it may seem, the Democrats are right about something for once. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; even Eric Swalwell occasionally mates with someone who is not a Chi Com spy, shutting her eyes tight and doing her booty duty for Beijing. The Dems are right that we need election reform to save our democracy. I propose that we change how we conduct elections, good and hard.

Now, the Democrats have a very different objective in reforming the election system than we do. They seek to make it easier for lazy and stupid people to vote. This is perfectly reasonable, considering that the indolent and idiotic make up key components of the Democrat coalition. Further, they want to flood the system with unaccountable votes in order to allow themselves to cheat. In this way, they can steal wins where otherwise voters would reject them for their incompetence, corruption, and general tiresomeness.

But we patriots have a different goal. We want election security, and we also want to make it more difficult for bums and morons to participate in our electoral system. The Dems complain that we would make it harder to vote. Guilty as charged! Voting should be a minor inconvenience in order to screen out the lay-abouts and mouth-breathers who find getting up off their stained, stinking couches, wiping the Doritos detritus off their Linkin Park t-shirts, and taking the bus to the polling station too much of a hassle.

Obviously, causing fewer duds and dummies to cast ballots will hurt the Democrats. Good. We want to hurt the Democrats. These communist-curious hacks should not be allowed within a parsec of power, and if we can make it harder for them to steal an election, good.

Democrats have their “voting rights” bill to facilitate a federal takeover of the election system because they believe that with the Democrat bureaucrats – is there any other kind? – in DC in charge, they will never lose another election. Considering that their standard-bearer is a desiccated old pervert who has the approval rating of a Lincoln Project babysitter, they have reason to worry that free and fair elections will repudiate the hell out of them in 2022 and 2024.

That’s why they want to cheat. There’s the bottom line – they want to steal elections and not be troubled by obstacles like clean voter rolls and basic ballot security measures. Ballot harvesting? How could having randos collecting Santa bags of ballots go wrong? It couldn’t not go wrong, and they are counting on that.

And then there’s voter ID, which merely 74% of Americans supported in a recent poll. There’s pretty much nothing else in American society that 74% of us agree on, except for mourning Betty White and that Brian Stelter is a potato.

The contortions they go through to explain why voter ID is racist and sexist and transphobic and causes climate change is kind of hilarious. It’s so transparently a ploy to make it easier to cheat that you have to give them credit for maintaining straight faces when crying about it. If we had a free media instead of a regime media, the Dem pols might get asked the obvious question, which is “Why do you think minorities are too stupid to get ID cards?” Or they might get asked “Why is it so hard that it is racist to require citizens to show a driver’s license to vote, yet not so hard that it is racist to require citizens to show a driver’s license and also to go get several shots and then to show yet another document, the vaccine passport, before they can sit down to eat a Whopper in a Burger King?”

The answer is, of course, that you are racist for asking such questions.

Our patriot voter reforms, in contrast, recognize the primacy of electoral security and the idea that if it’s too much trouble to vote, you will probably be voting for some leftist tool anyway. Here are the key components of our “Voting Freedom Initiative”:

Picture voter ID both to register and to vote. If you are too dumb to get an ID, you should be licking windows instead of casting ballots.

No same day registration. There’s no way to confirm your identity the same day you sign up.

One day voting, on Election Day. If it’s too much trouble to vote on Election Day, don’t.

In-person voting. If you are deployed with the military or in an iron lung, you can vote absentee. Everyone else shows up in-person. Only absentee ballots arriving by 5 pm on election day get counted.

No ballot harvesting. That nonsense ends.

Paper ballots only. We want an audit trail.

No ballots not counted within 12 hours of the polls closing get counted. We’re done with dumps and “found” ballots.

Every vote gets counted in public with lots of observers. Total transparency.

Large urban centers must report votes first. This makes it hard for Democrat pols to know how many ballots to find.

No changes to election laws or procedures within 180 days of the election. That gives time for us to litigate the scams.

These reforms would horrify the Democrats because they would make Democrat losers less likely to vote and complicate Democrat cheating. Those are features, not bugs.

And we also need some electoral reforms as a party. The 2020 election was lost, in large part, because the Republican Party completely stomped on its Schumer by failing to adequately fight out its legal challenges to the many unlawful rule changes decreed before election day. I got to Nevada right after Election Day and the GOP had one lawyer on the ground – one. That cannot happen again. Further, the Dems had a major law firm (Perkins Coie) with expertise and resources up and running everywhere. The Republicans did not have a big firm and that killed us – Democrat partners at big law firms refused to allow the big firms to join the fight. We need to create a big GOP law firm devoted to election warfare. It should have top notch litigators (and support staff) just waiting for election season; in the meantime, the firm can sustain itself on regular litigation. It does not even need donations – GOP-oriented businesses can give it a slice of their regular legal work to keep it going between elections. The next time the GOP asks you for a donation, ask them for their 2022/2024 lawfare game plan before you write a check.

Yes, our election system needs reform. It is too easy both to cheat and for cretins to vote. Later, we can move onto other innovative reforms, like voter IQ tests. Then, pretty soon, the Democrats will never win an election again.

Obviously, Kurt has our house bugged.

My wife and I have been having that EXACT conversation for years. Except the GOP Law Firm. Missed that, and it's a great idea.

My man's got it right, yet again. Like him or not, he's a thinker.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:
Like him or not, he's a thinker.

With thinking like "Every man should have ... several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman.", I've little respect for anything Schlichter has to say on any subject.

He's a jokester as well.

I have three dogs and a cat. Not offended.

I grew up with 3 wiener dogs (the first was a year older than me) had 3 more dogs and then 4 cats so Col. Kurt is very A OK with me.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:
Like him or not, he's a thinker.

With thinking like "Every man should have ... several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman.", I've little respect for anything Schlichter has to say on any subject.

I have given Schlichter a pass on that moronic quote, at least till I can see it in context.

The man does have points to make, often quite worth pondering, as in this essay. However, he never uses one word to express himself when he can use a dozen or more. The one word not in his extensive vocabulary is 'succinct.'

In the old days, where an editor would have come between an essayist and his/her public, his stuff would have been sharpened while being drastically shortened. Now, it's up to the readers to dip into the raw stream of verbiage and get the gist, on our own.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
I have given Schlichter a pass on that moronic quote, at least till I can see it in context.

This is an issue about which I admit I'm perhaps a bit too twitchy. There's a reason for that.

We were holding a neighborhood meeting in our house. One of our two cats at the time, a male, friendliest cat you could ever hope to know, the cat that turned me from being vaguely tolerant of cats into somebody who likes cats, of course had to check everybody out.

Mind you: This cat had become my "best buddy."

One of our guests, a young guy with more machismo than brains, kicked the cat

I didn't see it, my wife did. It's a damn good thing I didn't see it because it would have led to no good end.

Ever since then: People who speak ill of cats get short shrift from me.

Jesus! He's talking about the integrity of our elections.
He has some very valid points about voting and you discredit
him just because he doesn't like cats?

Democrats always like to roll out someone and present them as never having any identifications. The courthouse burned down, records were lost and so on. Generally, the person is old, minority and often female.
My question has always been “After all the effort to find this person, why not get them some identification?”