The Voting Rights Act and the Real Impact of the Supreme Court’s Shelby Decision

The sometimes heated debate in the Senate this week repeated what is now a major taking point for President Joe Biden and others in favor of curtailing the filibuster. As repeated last night by President Biden, democrats are arguing that blocking the vote on the federalization of elections is not just threatening democracy but hypocritical by Republicans. On Fox News, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki repeated the same point. The issue was also raised in the tense exchange between Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) over her prior vote in favor of the Voting Rights Act. The argument is that these members are hypocrites for previously voting in favor of that bill while supporting the filibuster now. It is time for a reality check. The argument is based on erroneous claims about the underlying bills and the prior rulings of the Supreme Court.

As a threshold matter, advocates often lump together both bills in the debate over filibuster to make this point.  In truth, one bill is an unprecedented federalization of election rules. Voting in favor of the earlier Voting Rights Act is largely immaterial to how you would view that bill. Yet, Psaki particularly has insisted that filibustering the bill is inexplicable given the earlier vote. That is what we can call “filibluster.”

Now on to the specific Voting Rights Act changes and the prior Supreme Court vote. Many advocates are espousing the same point raised in Mother Jones in a column titled “Republicans Once Supported the Voting Rights Act. Today, They Voted Against Its Restoration.” It is a view repeatedly made by Psaki, including this morning on Fox when she declared “I will say that a lot of Republicans in the past, 16 who are still in the Senate today, have supported the protection of voting rights in the past. So his question is: why wouldn’t this be a bipartisan effort?”

In addressing this argument, it is important to be specific over what would be “restored” in the Voting Rights Act. If one were to take the claims on the floor at face value, it would seem that, since the decision in 2013, there has been a void of protections for minority voters.  That is almost a decade ago.

In reality, there are ample protections for minority voters and litigation has continued over changes that impact minority groups. In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), the Court struck down Section 4(b), which subjects certain states to pre-clearance review based on their histories of discrimination. It did not make discrimination lawful or, in any way, limit access to the courts. It concerned only pre-clearance review.

There are good-faith arguments that the pre-clearance review is an important component of the Act to avoid barriers before they are imposed on voters. However, laws can still be challenged before elections as discriminatory. The decision in Shelby has not returned the country to the “Bull Connor” or “Jim Crow” period that President Biden repeatedly references.

The issue raised by the White House and Ossoff is that Collins and others voted in 2006 for the reauthorization of the Act. That was seven years before the landmark decision by the Supreme Court. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act does seek to restore pre-clearance requirements but it does more than that. It is not simply the restoration of the 2006 bill provisions. Moreover, some members can legitimately view the matter differently after the ruling in Shelby County.

Moreover, the bill goes beyond the prior bill to negate the impact of the 2021 ruling in  Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. That 6-3 decision upheld Arizona’s ban on ballot harvesting or collection and its ban on out-of-precinct voting. For those opposing the federalization of election laws, there is a good-faith basis for opposing such legislation (even if you would not support such bans in your own state).

One can still have disagreements over the merits of such election laws or the filibuster as a long-standing protection in the Senate. However, the continued referral in the media to the prior votes on the Voting Rights Act and its “restoration” are clearly misleading. There was a time when such arguments were considered beneath a senator on the floor. Indeed, that is why Democratic Sen. Daniel Moynihan famously stressed that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

56 thoughts on “The Voting Rights Act and the Real Impact of the Supreme Court’s Shelby Decision”

  1. @Anon…
    The issue is clearing up the voter rolls and making sure that you can be identified as the person you claim to be.

    The confusion is that many do not update their information and the information in the rolls is stale.
    Stale information leads to fraud.

    The simple solution is to clean up the data.
    That occurs from input from both the state and the individual updating the information.

    You move… do you get a new drivers license to reflect the updated address?
    How does the state know you moved? If one organization within the state gets this information… do they share it?
    (There are privacy law aspects at work here….)

    Quite simply put… no one is being denied the right to vote… but they do have an obligation to make sure that their voter registration data is up to date and the state has the obligation to have clean data. And keep it secure.

    -Gumby

  2. The Democrats want to prevent states from verifying voter’s identity and eligibility.

    Voter ID is associated with increased minority turnout, so this talking point that it’s Jim Crow is a deliberate lie.

    Why would Democrats prevent voter ID, when the vast majority of the country, including black people, support it?

    To cheat. This is why they oppose every measure to prevent cheating, whether it’s purging the voter rolls of those who have died, moved, been incarcerated, are in a memory care facility, or duplicate entries, or voter ID. This is why they support sending out mail in ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, knowing that many of them will be erroneous. As mentioned previously, I keep getting ballots for the previous owners of my house, at least one of whom passed away. This is why they want ballot harvesting. This is why they want caretakers and activists to go into old folks’ homes to fill out ballots for those who are mentally incapacitated. This is why they keep labeling common sense measures to prevent mistakes and fraud to be racist.

    1. A voter ID provision has been in the bill for quite a while now — it was part of the Manchin compromise proposal that Stacey Abrams agreed to.

  3. “Partisan Gerrymandering” is the top crisis Americans should be focusing on. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. Fixing this issue also helps unite Americans overall.

  4. In Joe’s speech in Atlanta he forgot to put in “There going to put you all back in chains!” Race baiting has served him so well in the past why give it up now. If your someone like Robert Bird https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/articles/69395-did-robert-byrd-really-change-his-mind-race you can just call on good old Joe Biden to provide a glowing eulogy at your funeral. After all he did a great job of praising the racist Jesse Helms. https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/roland.martin/index.html. He thinks black folks are to stupid to read so they will never find out who his friends in the Democratic Party have been. If you were black would you attend the funeral of these two bigots. Joe attended their funerals with praise in hand.

  5. New Texas Voting Law Creating Confusion

    Hundreds of Texans seeking to vote by mail in the upcoming March primary elections are seeing their applications for ballots rejected by local election offices trying to comply with stricter voting rules enacted by Texas Republicans last year.

    Election officials in some of the state’s largest counties are rejecting an alarming number of mail-in applications because they don’t meet the state’s new identification requirements. Some applications are being rejected because of a mismatch between the new identification requirements and the data the state has on file to verify voters.

    Texas has strict rules outlining who can receive a paper ballot that can be filled out at home and returned in the mail or dropped off in person on Election Day. Only voters who are 65 or older automatically qualify. Otherwise, voters must qualify under a limited set of reasons for needing a mail-in ballot. Those include being absent from the county during the election period or a disability or illness that would keep them from voting in person without needing help or that makes a trip to the polls risky to their health.

    Throughout last year’s protracted debate over the new voting law, state lawmakers were warned about potential issues that could arise from the new ID matching requirements, in part because the state does not have both a driver’s license and Social Security number for all of the roughly 17 million Texans on the voter rolls. Voters are not required to provide both numbers when they register to vote.

    Republican state lawmakers wrote the new ID requirements into sweeping legislation, known as Senate Bill 1, that further restricted the state’s voting process and narrowed local control of elections. Joining a broader legislative push to ratchet up voting rules across the country, Texas Republicans billed the proposals contained in SB 1 as an effort to safeguard elections from fraud, despite no evidence that it occurs on a widespread scale.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/13/texas-voting-mail-rejections/
    ………………………………………………………………

    As noted by this article, “no evidence” was presented that voting fraud was a genuine issue in Texas. Yet Republicans were determined to crack-down on imaginary fraud to appease Donald Trump; despite the fact that Trump won Texas by a comfortable margin.

    Therefore conservatives who pretend that no voting rights bill is necessary are either denying the obvious or oblivious to what is happening in Republican-led states.

    1. It’s not to appease Trump, it’s to restore confidence of voters that election results are valid. Which thanks to Trump many voters think there is fraud.
      As you state in the article you posted, you are not required to put both ss# and license # on the registration to vote..

  6. Here is a point that is not a “Big Lie”. In the voting rights bill there is a sentence that states that if a person signs a paper stating that he is who he says he will be allowed to vote. No provision is present in the bill that would require such a person to be listed on a voter role because by signing the paper he will be registered on Election Day. My oh my what could possibly go wrong? What would be the motivation of Democrats to put such a provision in the bill? The peace of paper he signs must be made available in Spanish. It’s just all innocent so no cheating will occur. You can Google the bill and read it for yourself. If you can’t write your name you can just sign on the doted line with an X because your to stupid to get a drivers license or a state ID card. The burden to get such identification must be just to much of a burden to endure. If you think that the Democrats wont use the bill to get out the illegal immigrant vote you are very naive indeed. Non citizens are already been allowed to vote in New York City and parts of California. Harvesting votes in nursing homes is nothing in comparison to harvesting votes from people who are in our nation illegally. It is very easy to see their plan.

  7. Good reminder about the PRIMARIES —–>

    ‘PRO TIP: That primary you’re ignoring is more important than the November election you’re looking forward to.’

  8. The proposed “Voting Rights Act” is unconstitutional.

    There is no “right” to vote provided by the Constitution.

    The “Manner” in which elections occur and Electors are appointed is directed comprehensively by each of 50 State legislatures.

    States direct who may or may not vote; elections are activities conducted by States.

    For example, voters must have generally been male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres in 1788 when turnout was 11.6% by design.

    No person who receives any type of continuing check from the government (i.e. taxpayers) should ever be entitled to vote by any State.

    America is a restricted-vote republic, which democracies have been since inception in Greece.
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Article 2, Section 1

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:…

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    1. George,

      Have you thought this through well enough?

      In the case of permanently disabled combat veterans receiving Disability Compensation from the VA or retired/disabled persons receiving. Social Security Payments…..would you deny them their Vote?

      1. “…EXCLUDE SUCH PERSONS, AS ARE IN SO MEAN A SITUATION, THAT THEY ARE ESTEEMED TO HAVE NO WILL OF THEIR OWN.”

        “…PERSONS OF INDIGENT FORTUNES, OR SUCH AS ARE UNDER THE IMMEDIATE DOMINION OF OTHERS,…”
        __________________________________________________________________________________________

        Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design; voters must have generally been male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

        Veterans deserve compensation.

        Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare serve a very small segment of the population, are unconstitutional as taxation must be for “…general Welfare…,” not individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution or charity, and Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare must be privatized, per the Constitution.

        People who receive checks from the government will vote for larger checks; every American knows that, and a vote is not needed to prove that.
        _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

        “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

        – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

    2. Article I, Section IV, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

  9. Margot says:

    “Even today after most of the facts have been provided some are still trying to sell the Big Lie.”

    BREAKING NEWS: Turley finally acknowledges Trump’s Big Lie after many months of silence in thehill.com:

    “The other ‘Big Lie:’ How Biden and Democrats fuel doubts about the 2024 election.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/590343-the-other-big-lie-how-biden-and-democrats-fuel-doubts-about-the-2024

    Turley writes:

    “After the 2020 election, some of us expressed skepticism over the claims of widespread fraud but waited to see the evidence presented in court. That evidence never materialized and, while I predicted an effort to challenge the electoral votes two days after the election, I wrote that calls to challenge the certification of the election were unfounded factually and legally.”

    Turley does NOT buy into Trump’s lie that the election was stolen. Sorry Trumpists.

    Turley notes:

    “In responding to Trump’s “Big Lie,” Democrats and many in the media are doing something remarkably similar by claiming these state laws are an effort to steal the coming elections – claims that might fuel anger and violence similar to that seen after the 2020 election.”

    And he quotes Nietzsche:

    “That is the problem with big lies. If the lies are not accepted by the public, they may just reduce faith in you rather than the election. Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”

    Finally, he concludes:

    “Lies can give license to those who are predisposed to violence on both sides, from antifa to the Proud Boys. We have enough lies going into 2024. What we need is leadership.”

      1. Quite the contrary, Turley and I see eye-to-eye on Trump. We are both Never Trumpers. Turley called Trump a “carnival snake charmer” back in 2011. I agree with his assessment of Trump’s moral character.

        I have an obsession with lying Trumpists.

        1. Joe Biden ain’t exactly a paragon of virtue….in case you haven’t noticed over the past 50 years or so.

        2. Jeff: Where would you rate the “moral Character of JFK, Joe Biden and MLK, Jr? I would rate them more amoral than DT. If that chaps your rear so be it. So you Dem Socialists hate DT. I can assure you many includung myself, hate the Policies and Lies of Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc. With Joe Biden and Kam Harris, and the Dems in Hose and Senate, America is in a hell of a fix and digressing to a dystopian state. But I am sure as hades you don’t agree.

          1. I will admit that Joe Biden is suffering from early onset dementia if you will admit that Trump is a serial liar. Deal?

            1. Jeff: Biden lies, Obama lied, Trump embleshieses and you can’t tell the diff? Again, say hello to bannana republic dystopian state. You have seen the best with worse to come. You Dems know it and some are confronting it.

              1. I don’t know what “embleshieses” is. My spell check says “No replacements found.” I’m guessing it must mean “pathologically lying.”

      1. Quite the contrary, Turley and I see eye-to-eye on Trump. We are both Never Trumpers. Turley called Trump a “carnival snake charmer” back in 2011. I agree with his assessment of Trump’s moral character.
        I have an obsession with lying Trumpists.

    1. Wow, your fixation/obsession/hatred is surely some sort of illness. And your ability to post unrelated drivel when you can’t actually respond to the argument is either frightening, sad or very confused. Seek help. Really, this isn’t a healthy way to be.

      1. Quite the contrary, Turley and I see eye-to-eye on Trump. We are both Never Trumpers. Turley called Trump a “carnival snake charmer” back in 2011. I agree with his assessment of Trump’s moral character.
I have an obsession with lying Trumpists.

        1. No, you have an obsession with readers perceiving you as being aligned with Professor Turley’s intelligent insights–an attempted and specious Hail Mary to save your credibility from the criticism you have received on this blog from MULTIPLE commenters. I don’t need an Anonymous alter-ego to render this observation.

          1. It’s a fact that Turley is a Never Trumper as I am. You don’t call someone a “carnival snake charmer” if you respect them as a human being. Don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/

            I agree that Turley was very intelligent to realize that the idea of Trump entering politics was “obscene” – his word, not mine.

  10. Rather than take up a distrustful position regarding the states’ ability to run fair elections, Congress should be cleaning up the remaining dangerous loopholes in the Electoral College selection of President:
    – Eliminate any possibility of Congress, WH or Federal Courts rejecting a State’s Official Electors
    – Outlaw the NPVIC and any other mechanism whereby State Electors are chosen based on votes cast in other states / territories

    As far as applying Secret Ballot protections to mail-in voting, and restraints on mail-in vote electioneering, the President or Congress should appoint a bi-partisan/non-partisan commission to study the issue in detail, and then report recommendations to Congress and State Legislatures.

    1. Re issues relating to electoral college. GET RID OF VOTER TAKE ALL. The states have the constitutional authority to do this,
      as Nebraska and Maine have done. It goes a along way to protecting the vote.

        1. Article I, Section IV, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    2. “…mail-in voting, and restraints on mail-in vote…”

      – pbinca
      _______

      “…THE DAY…”

      The day, the whole day, and nothing but the day, so help you God.

      Your statement is illogical and an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
      _____________________________________________________

      Article 2, Section 1

      The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

      Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:…

      The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      2 U.S. Code § 7 – Time of election

      The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
      ________________________________________________________________

      The law prescribes Tuesday, a 24-hour period, as “…the Day on which they shall give their Votes;…”

      “Vote-by-mail” breaks “…the chain of evidence,…,” causes ballots to be invalid, exceeds the 24 hours of Tuesday and is, therefore, illegal and unconstitutional.

      An election is an activity wherein citizens present at a polling place, identify themselves and vote, or execute their ballot, on one day, one 24-hour period.

      To select by vote on one day constitutes an election.
      _________________________________________

      elect verb

      elected; electing; elects

      Definition of elect

      transitive verb
      1 : to select by vote for an office, position, or membership
      _____________________________________________

      Vote-by-mail is unconstitutional.

      “…THE DAY…”

  11. Can there be any question at this point that the modern Dem party seeks to ‘repeal’ our Constitution? Biden’s speech made things pretty clear: convince people they do not have rights that they actually have and pass legislation confirming that phantom so that we are basically the Soviet Union circa 1984. this is insanity, and plenty of Russian immigrants from that time period would tell us so. There is no such thing as an American Democratic Party anymore. You (even if you are voting Independent – with their eating of their own, the Dems have made party irrelevant) are voting for tyranny or not voting for tyranny. It’s that simple. I know that a great many of us never thought we’d be dealing with this in our country – but we are. Stop voting for dems.

  12. Whig…..so would John Kennedy Jimmy Carter, Truman, and maybe even FDR.

    Truman retired destitute….an honest Man….imagine that with today’s career politicians?

    FDR was opposed to Public Employee Unions….certainly not a popular view today among Democrats.

    Carter was a good Man but poor President and had a religious faith the modern Democrat Part would find quite objectionable.

    Kennedy stood for America first, a strong economy, and a strong defense…..also something the current Democrat Party rejects.

  13. Pre Clearence is not a problem. Until the Democrat Party STASI (DoJ, FBI) are deployed to harrass states power to run elections

    Almost 10 years after Shelby and I have heard no accusations of racial descrimination in any elections. In fact turnout has increased.

    1. The Dems keep claiming the last presidential election was the most fair ever, so why all of a sudden are they crying that there is discrimination and voter suppression?

  14. Turley wrote, “the continued referral in the media to the prior votes on the Voting Rights Act and its “restoration” are clearly misleading.”

    They are misleading and it’s intentional, it’s all part of yet another false anti-Republican propaganda narrative.

    The political left has shown it’s pattern of propaganda lies in their narratives so many times over the last 6+ years that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively pushes?

    Turley wrote, “There was a time when such arguments were considered beneath a senator on the floor.”

    The Senate floor has become a place for professional political propagandists to spread their twisted innuendo and lies.

    1. …Steve, unfortunately, the Senate floor is occupied solely by professional political propagandists. The problem with the system is that both sides are lined up at the lobbyists’ feed trough to line their own pockets. There may be an exception or two, but overall, the entire system is corrupt. We are stupid to expect a fix to the system to come from inside the system. I think we’re stuck with being sold out going forward, no matter who is in charge. Democrats are black-belt level liars, Republicans are wimpy defeatists who don’t know how to fight back, and all of them are (these days) career politicians. That’s a big problem, IMHO.

      1. “We are stupid to expect a fix to the system to come from inside the system.”

        So it needs to come from us. While we are on the edge of the system (being the voters), perhaps we are sufficiently ‘on the outside’, that is, if we gather and converse sufficiently in our own communities. I’d like to see more regular people, rather than celebrities, rise to the role of servant leaders, people who know their communities and states and wish to serve their communities with fairness and balanced governance in mind, rather than political shenanigans that result in wild extremes.

  15. We have to keep publicizing Dem lies, but I for one am tired of their games.

    We know the facts; Dems are disingenuous and cynical; power is their only objective.

    What amazes me is that circa 30% of Americans still do not see the truth.

    1. Monocol – Why 30% of Americans don’t see the truth, I guess the same reason MSM doesn’t offer the truth? “denialism” or the “illusory truth effect”.

      Russia Russia Russia, how many Americans bought into the Big Lie for 3 years? Even today after most of the facts have been provided some are still trying to sell the Big Lie.

      There was a time I thought no one could scam New Yorkers but they sit by and are allowing non-citizens (illegals) to vote in their elections. So how are non-citizens voting in NY elections going to help Black Americans? There’s no benefit to them only to the politicians wanting to keep power. Do Black Americans ask, do they care?

      1. Margot, Margot, Margot: Trump’s campaign DID provide insider polling information to Russian hackers who used it to spread lies about Hillary Clinton in swing state districts where they strategically believed it could sway enough voters. The plan worked–Trump won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, just like polls predicted. That DID happen. That is called cheating. The Mueller Report proves it, and the Mueller investigation could have garnered more evidence except that Trump refused to cooperate and got away with it. Dan Coats, head of US Intelligence agencies, confirmed it. Why do you believe it isn’t true–is it because you hear the Fox News pundits dismissing this scandal as “Russia, Russia, Russia”? This is why Trump will never be considered legitimate.

        1. Strange. Wasn’t HRC and her campaign saying they would win the Electoral College and Trump would win the popular vote? Oh that’s right they did. Talk about attempting to rewrite history.

        2. Natacha:

          Hillary Clinton shared classified information with every bad actor on the planet, including Russia, by foregoing the closed communications systems of State. Instead, she kept an illegal bootleg server in her bathroom, where anyone without any clearance could access it. She backed it up to the Cloud. Had IT work on it. It’s like shouting the information in front of the UN. Then she wiped the server clean with BleachBit and lied about it.

          The dossier was fake. The sub source said it was made up and never to be presented as factual. There was no evidence whatsoever of Trump colluding with Russia.

          It was all made up. Spurious. Untrue.

          You’ve refused to accept reality for years, despite constantly trolling a blog where Professor Turley has repeatedly debunked the Russia hoax.

          Russiagate was a hoax perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, in which she paid a disgraced British ex-spy to gather false intel from Russian spies, as a planned October Surprise. This false intel was then seeded to the FBI, which used it to undermine and spy upon a sitting US president.

          All based on fake op-ed research by Democrats, who actually did collude with Russia in order to meddle with the presidential election. Although the fraud failed to win them the White House in 2016, they succeeded in spreading misinformation about Trump, undermining the US geopolitically, and convincing naive, ignorant people that a US President was working for Russia. That was actually Hunter.

          Stop blaming the victim of this seditious plot.

        3. Natacha wrote, “Trump’s campaign DID provide insider polling information to Russian hackers who used it to spread lies about Hillary Clinton in swing state districts where they strategically believed it could sway enough voters.”

          Nope, wrong again; as usual.

          You, like so many other willful anti-Trump propaganda consumers, have completely swallowed the TDS bait like good little hive-minded sheeple and have come to the irrational conclusion that 2 + 2 = 34,589.01856. No you fool, Correlation ≠ Causation!!!

          That nonsense you spewed is parroting pure unadulterated propaganda, it’s unsubstantiated accusations, it’s pure conspiracy theory garbage and you’re presenting it as if it’s fact; that’s what political attack dog internet troll liars do.

          I know the ends justifies the means to you idiotic progressive political tools but it was pure foolishness to spew that nonsense as fact; it would have been better for you to remain silent and be thought a fool than to write what you did and remove all doubt.

          Natacha wrote, “Trump will never be considered legitimate.”

          You idiots use this kind of pure propaganda to justify statements of President Trump’s legitimacy and yet you think that any claim that the 2020 election was rigged by the Democrats for four years straight and then they literally b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-e-d State election laws and you sheeple claim that these accusations are completely without warrant and anyone that makes such a claim is a traitor to Democracy; I am no Trump fan but there is something seriously wrong with the brainwashed minds of the Trump Deranged.

Leave a Reply