This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jhkim

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 564
1
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: What's to be done about homelessness?
« on: January 23, 2021, 08:33:44 pm »
An opinion piece about finances from a respected financial source (Forbes), and I didn't cite any of the opinions in the article. I used it as a source for concrete numbers about the state's finances, all of which the article attributed and linked to the original studies, and which massively contradict your numbers. And your reply is just that the future is unknowable. There's room for divergence of opinions, but you're denying there should be an opinion on the topic.

Sorry. I did not mean to say that there shouldn't be an opinion on the topic, and I do take respected opinion pieces seriously.

From what I saw of the article, it didn't contradict my source - it just was using different definitions. My source was looking at general debt - but most of the article was looking at future obligations - like infrastructure maintenance costs. Yes, California has obligations to pay beyond borrowed money, but so do other states. In order to compare apples to apples, one would need to look at what the expected infrastructure and similar costs like pensions are for other states.

2
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
« on: January 22, 2021, 06:29:59 pm »
Sure, you can say it, but you're not protected from repercussions for knowingly spreading lies.
Yes, you are. That's exactly how free speech works.
You're a fucking idiot. Go lie about being a lawyer/doctor and then charge someone for legal/medical advice and try and claim it was "free speech" to do so. There's also slander and libel for a reason, and free speech again doesn't hold up when you're knowingly spreading false information. What a dumb motherfucker you are.

This is talking past each other. There are specific forms of speech that are not covered under free speech - like libel, slander, false advertising, fraud, etc. However, these are all limited cases -- they are judged by specific criteria other than just lying or not.

There is no general exception to free speech for knowingly spreading lies.

That said, the issue of "repercussions" is also vague - and free speech allows some kinds of repercussions. Free speech might allow someone to tell lies - but it also allows another person to call them a liar and ruin their reputation.

3
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
« on: January 22, 2021, 03:58:48 pm »
Yeah, and if Martin Luther King Jr had tried civil disobedience in a violent country, he would have ended up shot in the head. Except... that's how he did end up. But killing him didn't end the movement that he supported. His killing reinforced the idea that his opponents were wrong.

Earlier in history, Christianity has thousands of peaceful martyrs who were killed by violent rulers. But creating martyrs didn't end Christianity as a religion -- it made the rulers even less popular, and often Christianity flourished in the face of this opposition.

Peaceful protest isn't an automatic win - but neither is violent revolution. Both have had some successes and a lot of failures.

Are you seriously equating one asshole bigot with a rifle to, oh, say, the repression seen at Tianamen Square? There's a bit of difference.

I'm not saying they are the same. But the point is that the use of violence doesn't necessarily undo non-violent resistance. If Ghandi had been killed, that wouldn't have meant that his cause didn't work. He might well have had more effect as a martyr than as a living figure.

I cited Christian martyrs who were killed by the thousands at times. In modern times, the Soviet Union was extremely brutal - but they were toppled by non-violent means.

4
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: What's to be done about homelessness?
« on: January 22, 2021, 01:56:00 pm »
The proof is in actual results - in how people actually live. Things like GDP per capita, average lifespan, poverty rate, suicide rate, violent crime rate, and so forth. Yes, California has problems - but so do all the other states. When we compare *proven* results, California mostly does better than average. Regarding the statistics - if you have a comparison of unfunded liabilities by GDP per state, I'd love to see it. I didn't see a comparison of that in my search.
Pat's already linked you to one.

How many people left California last year again?

Most recently, Pat linked to an opinion piece which showed a number of worrying stats on California - but it did not provide any comparison to the same from other states. For example, will California have problems with infrastructure in the future? Sure it will. The question is, relative to its size and economy, how *much* trouble will it have compared to other states? I don't know that.

My point is - when we say "the proof is in the pudding" - that implies looking at actual results, not an opinion piece on what the future might be.


GDP per capita is important. Really important. Take all the other metrics and throw them away important. It serves as a reasonable proxy for the standard of living for each individual citizen, and also for power and influence as a whole -- that's why countries with small GDPs regularly beat countries with large GDPs, if they have higher per capita GDP.
Quote
And California has a high overall GDP and an even higher GDP per capita. So yes, it does very well by that measure. But they're also doing poorly by other measures, like government management of the homeless, government interference in housing, government imposed taxes, and government debt. And some of those are creating long term problems, that will impact the future GDP per capita. A small percentage of the taxpayers in California pay a very high percentage of the taxes, and they're starting to flee. The wealth has also largely been produced by a few specific sectors, primarily technology.
Quote
The question isn't whether California is rich. It is. The question is whether they're sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The Magic 8 Ball says maybe.

I won't argue with the Magic 8 Ball. It's quite possible that California will falter at points in the future - nothing lasts forever. And I have plenty of criticisms of California. But I also take known results as a more definite indicator than Magic 8 Ball.

5
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
« on: January 22, 2021, 12:03:37 pm »
Also just so you know, peaceful protest, ...doesn't really work. It's a complete waste of time and resources. Here is an example of the peaceful protest march of Iranian Women, marching for their right to dress as they prefer, and demanding equal rights.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/iran-women-revolution-hijab-protests-ayatollah-khomeini-a8251686.html
Mike Vanderboegh (an irascible, cranky pro-2A blogger and activist) once opined that if Mahatma Gandhi had tried his civil disobedience tactics on the Imperial Japanese (circa WW2), his bayoneted and beheaded corpse would've been found floating down the Ganges River along with his followers. The tactics work with a people and government who prefer peaceful resolution and are willing to listen, as well as having a moral center that abides by such. Iran does not have that. Britain did, hence why Gandhi got away with it.

Yeah, and if Martin Luther King Jr had tried civil disobedience in a violent country, he would have ended up shot in the head. Except... that's how he did end up. But killing him didn't end the movement that he supported. His killing reinforced the idea that his opponents were wrong.

Earlier in history, Christianity has thousands of peaceful martyrs who were killed by violent rulers. But creating martyrs didn't end Christianity as a religion -- it made the rulers even less popular, and often Christianity flourished in the face of this opposition.

Peaceful protest isn't an automatic win - but neither is violent revolution. Both have had some successes and a lot of failures.

6
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: What's to be done about homelessness?
« on: January 22, 2021, 11:44:30 am »
Yes, California has a problem with its pension system - but lots of states have different financial woes. In general, blue states are not financially incompetent. On average, blue states have higher GDP per capita and household income than red states. They host dominant financial institutions like Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. There's plenty of problems in blue states to nitpick, but overall, their finances are no worse than red states.

In terms of general debt, California is roughly average in debt as a percentage of GDP, and less than, for example, Texas.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2021pH0C
14% of $3.1 trillion is about $430 billion. Yet here's a source that says California's debt is $1.3 to 2.3 trillion, with pensions alone accounting for $1 trillion:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/
I'd bet that 14% doesn't include unfunded liabilities. Which private companies are required to include on their balance sheets, by government regulators, because it's just common sense to include legally promised future commitments. But which the government frequently doesn't include on its own balance sheets, because they're trying to hide their own failures to control costs.
Yup. Jhkim is cheerfully quoting statistics that are, how shall we say, 'massaged'. Hence why I'm not really paying much attention.

And of course, the proof is in the pudding; why else would California be trying to pass blatantly illegal tax codes targeting people outside its jurisdiction?

Yeah, the proof is in the pudding. When it really comes down to it, what matters to people's lives is proposed laws that haven't been passed.

Oh, wait. No, that's not the proof.

The proof is in actual results - in how people actually live. Things like GDP per capita, average lifespan, poverty rate, suicide rate, violent crime rate, and so forth. Yes, California has problems - but so do all the other states. When we compare *proven* results, California mostly does better than average. Regarding the statistics - if you have a comparison of unfunded liabilities by GDP per state, I'd love to see it. I didn't see a comparison of that in my search.

7
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
« on: January 21, 2021, 10:42:14 pm »
What about child porn?  Is that illegal in the US or covered under the freedom of speech laws?

That's illegal, as I think you know, and can and should be prosecuted.

Under Section 230, Twitter, Gmail, and other app providers have limited liability for users who send child porn, though. In the article you just linked, the issue is - was this a negligent employee who just sent a form letter rather than doing their job in taking down content? Or did Twitter as a company knowingly allow child porn as policy? On search on child porn and Twitter, I see recent cases where Twitter turned in information that lead to the arrest of those sharing child porn.

Quote
A local man was arrested and charged in December after Twitter reported he had been sharing child pornography on its website.
Source: https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/local-man-arrested-for-reportedly-sharing-child-porn-on-twitter/article_66e92831-5977-57e5-b443-528eefa63b83.html

Quote
Google, Twitter alert authorities to 76-year-old man sharing child porn images
Source: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/13/marionville-man-admits-share-child-porn-lawrence-county-google-twitter/3359301001/


Still, maybe Twitter is promoting some child porn and prosecuting others. We can wait to see claims in the lawsuit.

As far as the law goes, if we remove Section 230, then services like Twitter will be much quicker to ban and block content -- which is the opposite of what many people want. And it will make life much more difficult for competitor services which don't have Twitters legal teams and expertise.

Again, I think amending Section 230 to make limited liability require more open speech conditions, and clearer policies with legal redress.

8
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
« on: January 21, 2021, 07:20:03 pm »
All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

So let's say an authoritairan, tyrranical faction takes control of the public square, and uses purely legal and legitimate means to sieze control of the cultural levers of power, do we tolerate that? Where do we draw the line? When do we draw the line? Do we draw the line or just go along with things?

I'd like to point out that Jim Crow was legal, and slavery was legal at one time. And people resisted sometimes using illegal, non-violent resistance. And sometimes violent resistance.

Well, that was part of my question - what do you think should be made illegal? The solution to legal slavery was the 13th Amendment. The solution to Jim Crow was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How do you think the law should change to deal with Twitter and Facebook, then?

For myself, I think abolition, women's rights, and the Civil Rights movements are all good models about how to go about trying to shut down popular authoritarian ideas. They were all largely addressed within the legal system. As for specifically how to deal with Twitter and Facebook -- there can be some legal changes to make things harder for them. We should enact more serious online privacy protection laws, similar to what the EU has, to limit selling people's personal data. Also, the corporations could be broken up to a degree using antitrust laws. But I think the main pushback against them has to be cultural - talk up more about how they are a problem. We can't enact the laws until a majority of people favor such laws.


Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

For a start they allow propagation of hate speech allowing for example the trending of the "Hang Mike Pence" hash tag.

They also allow death threats and doxxing for example the right wing white supremacist hate group “ShutDown DC” recently doxxed Sen. Josh Hawley.

Hate speech isn't illegal, at least within the United States. In the UK or Germany someone can be put in jail for doing a nazi salute or similar -- but I don't think that's a good thing.

Death threats are currently illegal, and should be prosecuted - but Section 230 limits Twitter's liability for someone's death threats. Doxxing often isn't even illegal - though it should be - and similarly Section 230 limits liability. I think that Section 230 should be reformed to be conditional. The only way that liability is limited is that the service has to conform to a choice of one of a few national content standards, and users can then have legal redress if they are banned for reasons outside those.

9
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: What's to be done about homelessness?
« on: January 21, 2021, 05:49:42 pm »
From what I read, red states with lower taxes tend to be *more* dependent on federal money. Blue states tend to have higher GDP per capita, and thus bring in more federal tax money more than federal aid. In the Wallethub study below, for example, the most dependent were New Mexico, Kentucky, and Mississippi - while the least dependent were Kansas, New Jersey, and Delaware.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005/

If you dispute these, do you have an another source that shows different results, where blue states are more federally dependent?
A couple things:

First, the statistics used to justify the 'red states are more dependent' usually pile in -military- spending. Like, for bases. Not exactly welfare there.

Second, the state and local tax deduction is one of the biggest scams in the system. Residents of states and municipalities get to apply that tax as a deduction against federal taxes. Since we can't just magic that money up, someone has to make up the balance -- usually states and municipalities with lower tax rates.

Third, you can lecture me all you like, but California's pension system is completely out of control. The unfunded liabilities are, if unchecked, going to absolutely cripple them -- hence why California's been trying to find ways to tax people who leave or don't actually LIVE in California.

And I guarantee there will be a bailout for those hard-blue states. Rewarded, for their fiscal incompetence.

So you dispute the points, but you don't have any source that says differently? The state and local tax deductions are *included* in the calculations I gave. So, even with those deductions, blue states are still on average giving in more in federal taxes than they are receiving federal spending, compared to red states. I agree that the deduction can be seen as a scam -- but it is counterbalanced by the scam of getting more federal money.

As for military, in terms of economics, it's no different than any other federal government contract. It puts federal money into the state. If a state could get more military contracts and get more money, then the state benefits.

Yes, California has a problem with its pension system - but lots of states have different financial woes. In general, blue states are not financially incompetent. On average, blue states have higher GDP per capita and household income than red states. They host dominant financial institutions like Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. There's plenty of problems in blue states to nitpick, but overall, their finances are no worse than red states.

In terms of general debt, California is roughly average in debt as a percentage of GDP, and less than, for example, Texas.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2021pH0C


10
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: These FIVE men control your freedom
« on: January 21, 2021, 05:16:19 pm »
Sigh. The problem isn't 'Jack can do what he wants with Twitter'. Because, yeah, he can, short of a First Amendment ruling (which would open up a can of worms I'm not comfortable with).

The problem is that Jack and his buddies will happily kneecap competitors. So the whole 'if you don't like it, start your own X' meme falls apart, because you are prevented from doing so.

What do you mean by "kneecap" here?

All businesses will do steps that try to undercut the competition. They'll be sneaky, underhanded, and mean in trying to crush their competitors. What they *shouldn't* be allowed to do is things that are illegal, like actually breaking people's kneecaps, smashing servers, and the like.

Is there a specific tactic that Twitter is using that you think is illegal, or that should be illegal?

11
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: What's to be done about homelessness?
« on: January 21, 2021, 02:34:16 pm »
Yeah, that works till you run out of other people's money.

Though with the newly anointed Pederast In Chief, I expect some of these big-spender blue states will be coming hat in hand to the federal government for bailouts. Sleepy Joe already plans, supposedly, to remove the SALT (state and local tax) cap on federal tax deductions, which means once again states with lower taxes will be propping up the ones with higher.

From what I read, red states with lower taxes tend to be *more* dependent on federal money. Blue states tend to have higher GDP per capita, and thus bring in more federal tax money more than federal aid. In the Wallethub study below, for example, the most dependent were New Mexico, Kentucky, and Mississippi - while the least dependent were Kansas, New Jersey, and Delaware.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005/

If you dispute these, do you have an another source that shows different results, where blue states are more federally dependent?

12
I think he's really just a businessman, looking for opportunities and worried about competition. He's for free markets in the sense he wants to run a business and do well, but it's the nose in the weeds practical perspective, rather than a sky-high theoretical view from above. That's why he seems oblivious to the damage done by things like monetary inflation, because he has no theoretical grounding; and he's fine with stimulus packages, because he likes handing out things to his friends. He's has no problem with protectionism, as long it favors him or his allies.

I think there's less of a divide over the trade war with China than you think. The political and journalistic classes hate it because it comes from Trump, but even when NPR was interviewing trade officials or import/expert business heads, they couldn't find any who would flat-out say it was bad. They weren't confident that Trump's tactics were going to work, and they knew in the short term it would hurt, but they believed it was far past time someone stood up to China and all their unfair practices. Among economists, some supported the political establishment by saying China is bad and we need to do something, but Trump is still bad because he should have done it a bit differently; and some on the strong free market side will always argue in favor of unilaterally reducing all tariffs to zero; but most seem to think it's at least somewhat justified.

I was speaking about the trade wars in general, not just China. Particularly your last sentence sounds much like what I'm saying. "Most think it's at least somewhat justified" sounds mixed to me, which was my point. I'm not opposed to trade wars -- I don't feel strongly about them either way. I support more restricted trade based on human rights - especially with repressive governments like China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. But that's on moral grounds rather than economic benefit.


1) At this point, the damage that will come from stimulus, QE, etc. is going to be pretty devastating. 
(Hence, why the can keeps getting kicked down the road.) 

2) Everybody below upper-middle-class will get hit very hard, but the elites try and hide it by manipulating the data.
(Inflation is a big factor at that end of the income spectrum.  Notice which categories have been 'removed' from inflation rate calculations between 2000-2016.)

The only recent president who came close to balancing the budget was Bill Clinton, who had negative deficit for 1998 - 2001. Trump followed the exact same playbook as Bush - continue to raise the federal budget and give a bunch of tax breaks (mostly to the rich), while raising the deficit. Obama came in during the Great Recession, and he continued roughly the same Bush plan for dealing with it.

On the national debt, you point out that the elites are going to walk out of it and the middle and lower classes take the brunt. I agree that this is a distinct possibility. The Republican solution is to keep giving the elites more and more money through tax breaks. The Democratic solution is to undo the elite tax breaks so they pay a greater share.

*If* one's concern is that the middle and lower classes are taking undue burden for the national debt, then I would think that the Democratic solution makes more sense. I think the only way that the Republican deficit approach makes sense is if one believes in trickle-down theory, or "a rising tide lifts all boats".


3) They started raising the Interest Rate as soon as he got into office.  But his policies still enabled the economy to expand and the rate was almost back into the 'range' that economists like, then the Wu-Flu destroyed the economy. 
(He understood that Keynesian economics are not good long term, but he was trying to soften the blow as much as possible.  If you look at his ideas as a whole they all lean in that direction.)

As much as I despise the use of Keynesian economics to generate wealth off of the back of a serf class, I think he was trying to get people out from under the establishment yoke without collapsing everything.

I don't see how you think his policies accomplished this. Yes, the economy expanded under his first three years, though the economy expanded under Obama's second term as well. And his response to the covid economic crisis was roughly the same as Bush and Obama to the Great Recession - stimulus money.

13
Half of Trump's policy - and his biggest legislative agenda - was the traditional Republican playbook -- increase government spending and cut taxes across the board, running up the deficit. (The median American got around $1000 from the cuts, but the top 1% got $50,000.)

Where he departs from traditional is in his trade wars and restricted immigration. The benefit of those to the average American is unclear. I don't have a strong opinion, and opinion from economists seems highly varied.

1) $1000 to a median is a much bigger boost than $50,000 to a 1%'er...

   And I think the numbers are off.  As I said before, I do my own taxes and mine was about $2000 difference and I am near the median with no kids.  I'm guessing that wherever those numbers came from is using total taxes, not just federal.*

Because there was a fair amount of restructuring, there is a variance depending on who you are. But I've seen roughly this number from multiple sources. Here's one:

Quote
The Tax Policy Center estimates the 60% of Americans at the lower end of the income distribution will have federal tax savings of less than $1,000. Also, most people believe the tax cuts didn’t benefit people like them but only the very wealthy. They are right. Those in the top 1% save $51,000.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/04/09/five-good-reasons-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-trump-tax-cut-benefited-you/
cf also https://americansfortaxfairness.org/promise-will-middle-class-tax-cut/

2) Restricted immigration raises wages by reducing the supply of workers. This can also raise prices but over the last 50 years the wage stagnation far outstrips any price increase that is due to reduced worker supply.

3) Trade wars and tariffs will cause similar effects, but again the fact that it is not true free trade has still caused prices to rise far faster than wages. 

   ...Would you allow a US company to use slave labor inside the border?  Setting aside the moral/ethical dilemma, economically it would give the company a significant advantage over competition.  Then why is it considered 'free' trade when you allow importers to do it?

4) Economists are never in consensus.  Everything is a series of trade-offs. 

Regarding these - #2 and #3 are a piece of #4. Yes, I've seen similar arguments about immigration, but those seem simplistic. Many people picture that there are a fixed number of jobs from the overlords, so if you double the population - then half the people are out of work. But that's obviously false. More people means more domestic market -- building more homes, shopping more, and so forth. That creates more jobs. And more work can also create more jobs, like how new homes creates new service jobs. The balance between positive and negative effects depends on the details of how immigration is handled.

As for slavery - that is overwhelmingly a moral/ethical question, not an economic one. I would love it if we set trade limits based more on morality rather than convenience - but that wasn't what the recent trade wars were about. We're still close partners with Saudi Arabia and other repressive countries.

14
I think this will be the last populist president for some time. They're not going to make the same mistakes in our lifetimes.
Thank you Donald Trump. Whatever you are, you were the kick the pants that America needed.
Seventy million (or more) supporters might disagree.

Trump wasn't the disease. He wasn't the cause. He was a symptom of intense discontent with the 'Washington Way'.

But then, the left has never been very smart.

I see it mostly as a failure of Republican leadership, not a problem among Democrats. The elite political class of either party are limited in how far they can go, because if they go too far, they get voted out. Smart politicians give their supporters enough of the desired agenda that they stay in power. That's how democracy should work - the representatives respond to the will of the people.

I agree that Trump was a symptom of discontent. Working class Republicans were fed up with the Bush era politics, driven largely because economic inequality has been growing in the U.S. for the last thirty years. The rich are getting richer. The traditional Republican answer is trickle down theory - that even if the rich are growing richer, the rest are getting a boost too. However, that answer has been less and less accepted.

But how different are Trump's economic policies in practice for the average American?

Half of Trump's policy - and his biggest legislative agenda - was the traditional Republican playbook -- increase government spending and cut taxes across the board, running up the deficit. (The median American got around $1000 from the cuts, but the top 1% got $50,000.)

Where he departs from traditional is in his trade wars and restricted immigration. The benefit of those to the average American is unclear. I don't have a strong opinion, and opinion from economists seems highly varied.

15
I have no evidence. My suspicion is that we're not seeing top down co-ordinated voter fraud. I think we're seeing bottom-up voter fraud, only organized by the shared understanding that people who hate Trump think he's worse than Hitler and saving us from the Orange Holocaust was worth a little shenanigans.

Thanks, Ratman. Yes, there's some fraud in every election - and I could believe that there was more in this election, given the extreme partisanship. We should find and prosecute these cases. But declaring fraud without evidence is wrong - as is flawed evidence like experts testifying about fraud in non-existent counties.


At least there are some officials willing to do their job to investigate and prosecute election fraud:

https://en-volve.com/2021/01/14/election-official-arrested-in-texas-for-massive-voter-fraud-and-vote-harvesting-after-project-veritas-sting/

Yes. There have been other charges filed as well, like Mr. Bartman of Pennsylvania charged with trying to register his dead mother and mother-in-law to vote for them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-voter-fraud-republican-felony-charges-casting-ballot-for-dead-mother

These cases are proceeding, and it is quite likely the fraudsters put in jail. If we believe there are others responsible for fraud, people can still gather evidence and prosecute them. The statute of limitations on fraud prosecution is generally five years, from what I read in search.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 564