118 year old Michigan Man votes by absentee ballot
Did the Detroit give and count an absentee ballot from a 118-year-old dead voter, as a video or FB post shows?
- According to Detroit Election officials, they sent the ballot to William Tarnell Bradley: the son of the dead man, with nearly the same name -- but it got accidentally logged as his father, hence the confusion. But they assure us that they logged the vote properly. However, that ignores that they tacitly admit they sent a dead man a ballot. (None of the fact checkers address that point -- a gaping hole in their system).
- And the problem was it wasn't just one case in Wayne County Michigan, it was thousands. If there were thousands of clerical errors of dead people getting mailed ballots and ballots getting recorded as those dead people's ballots, you don't think that's a problem? And there none of them were dead votes, or that there's no problems in the process?
- NYT tries to defend them by saying if folks can't read a date, they default to 1900 and that's why so many look so old -- but that ignores that there are thousands that are dead, have no one else of the same name, that got ballots, got recorded as voting, and their dates weren't 1900. They ignore that in a well working system there wouldn't be these problems in the first place.
- Snopes points out that while they can't prove these claims of dead voting is false, that you should ignore common sense or that there's a problem and assume they are because they said so.
Journalists are not doing their jobs by looking for excuses instead of looking for or admitting to problems. And thousands of dead people on the voter roles, is a problem.
- Pretending all that is true, what about the other 10,000 dead people that voted in Michigan?  Are all of them just name collisions as well? Journalists would be curious. Partisan Democrat activists are the least curious people on the planet.
- Is there some claims of Dead Michigan Voters? Y
- Are some of those claims false? Of course.
- Are some of those claims true? Of course.
- Are both sides going to cherry pick and believe what they want? Duh!
- Has anything changed in that? A little.
So what is the real problem here?
The problem is that for 100+ years the Democrats especially fostered an environment where the public has valid reasons to distrust the media and elections, especially in Democrat-controlled cities.
If Democrats had be fighting like the Republicans for more quality controls, more transparency, more accountability, and the nation/election integrity over winning -- there would be very very very few people that would believe this stuff. But instead they fertilized the soil with vilifying Republicans for trying have things like voterID, sanitizing voter roles, for going after election fraud/abuse, for talking about the real issues with mail in ballots, all while Democrats and their media tried to have a coup against a duly elected President because they didn't like him. (Russiagate). Then they're shocked that after4 years and hundreds of examples of them lying and cheating to try to win, that the other side (and anyone rational) might not trust them?
Come on man. The problem here isn't that some things might not be as bad as they look at first glance... it's that Democrats have undermined out democracy since Tammany Hall, and when they control the media, education, or any system, they're not the slightest bit fair. And so 1/2 of Americans have learned to distrust the 1/2 that won't admit they've ever done anything wrong (or that the other side has ever done anything right).
Doubt it? Ask 10 democrats to name 5 things Trump did that was better than what Hillary/Obama or Biden would have. 90% can't name one. We have the NYT famous for Walter Duranty and Russiagate, preening about how there are no dead people that voted -- when ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if we find thousands nationally, if not more... even if they can discredit a dozen examples here or there as administrative errors. More than that, they just deflected from the original point which was that ballots were sent to dead people and can be used for abuse. The thing they're trying to discredit is proven by their defense of it -- that we need more voter sanitization and election integrity or this information or disinformation (whether you believe it), will keep succeeding.
Most importantly, thisshows that there's suspicion of the process because Democrats have obstructed trying to clean up voter roles and put in checks, for so long. If Democrats had done what Republicans have been pushing for, for decades, this would have been a non-issue. So having to defend against disinformation is a symptom that proves Democrats were wrong (and Republicans were right) all along. But that's way to deep for leftist sources to consider, or admit to.