Conservatives in danger of losing elections cry ‘voting fraud’
Have you noticed the trend that when conservatives are in danger of losing elections, they cry “voting fraud?” The Aug. 26 letter from Mr. Cossick does a good job of parroting the many false election fraud claims by Trump and Fox News, including the millions of dead people who may be fraudulently voting in our elections. Funny! Are all these dead people Democrats?
Numerous studies by respected neutral experts have shown that genuine voting fraud — as opposed to mistakes and miscounting — is less than one ballot out of 10,000 cast. Notice how Mr. Cossick is only concerned about this tiny percentage, and ignores the greater danger to our democracy, which is our shamefully low voter turnout.
Only about 60% of our eligible American population vote in presidential elections, and far fewer in off-year elections. Why does Cossick focus on fraud and not this low turnout?
The answer is that for the last 150 years conservatives have opposed every effort to increase voter participation, especially among minorities. For example, why do we still vote on Tuesdays, a relic of the 19th century? Most other democracies in the world vote on weekends. Sorry, conservatives are against changing it.
How about “motor-voter” automatic registration when you visit the DMV? Only 19 mostly liberal states do this. How about a free pizza coupon for casting your vote? I’m sure conservatives would oppose this too.
If Trump loses in November, will Cossick join him in claiming that the election was stolen and will Trump gain additional fame as the worst sore loser in American election history? How ironic it will be if Trump has a childish tantrum that he would not have tolerated in defeated contestants on his “Apprentice” show when they hear “You’re fired!”
Protect your freedom
If you want honest representation instead of typical career politician behavior, then there is only one choice in November for the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado: Lauren Boebert. Without apology, she stands for common sense values that are centered on personal responsibility backed by the discipline of law and order.
If you are tired of campaigns that hurl nasty rhetoric and blatant falsehoods, then you must certainly have had enough of Diane Mitsch Bush’s party diatribe. She calls her opponent, Boebert, “extreme.” In truth, it is Mitsch Bush who is extreme. I know her and am personally disappointed in her transformation from a local crusader for the common good of everyone to a blind party line advocate at all cost. She has fallen in line with the system that rewards conformity and discourages original thinking. You need to know that she is in lockstep with the very left wing of her liberal party and will ardently support every socialist agenda that they push. She has perfected the art of verbal smoke screen to disguise the real intent behind her feigned “reach across the aisle” rhetoric. Her touted milquetoast “accomplishments” are no qualification to have her occupy a chair that will vote progressive left every time and continue to produce the negative results we are now seeing daily.
Which one of these candidates will protect your right to own a gun? Diane is an ardent supporter of anti-gun activists and has voted with them. Which of these candidates will protect your personal rights? Mitsch Bush votes the party line that is intent on stifling citizens’ freedom of choice and expression. If you are tired of others telling you that you must only side with them on what they think matters or be slapped with a derogatory label, and you have the courage to make your own decisions, then vote for the candidate that encourages you to do just that: Lauren Boebert.