1. Article explains there are TWO separate but overlapping groups calling for Article V Constitutional Convention: (1) “Balanced Budget Task Force” (28 states have filed applications) & (2) the “Convention of States” (a lower # has applied). #NoConConinthesetimes.com/article/18940/…
2. Correction: The first group is called the Balanced Budget AMENDMENT Task Force. (BBATF).
Anyway, this first Group is scary bc it wants to cut programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid under the deceptive guise of balancing the budget.
3. Per the article, the second group, the “Convention of States” group wants not only a Balanced budget amendment, but also to curtail the power and jurisdiction of the federal courts.
4. It is my understanding, however, that under either proposal (“just” Balanced Budget or Balanced Budget plus attack on federal govt), a “runaway Convention” with ALL issues on the table is possible. #NoConCon
5. Here is a post linking to an article stating that 12 states have signed onto the Convention of States.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @DemWrite view original on Twitter
6. This article had perplexed me until today bc I thought there were 28! Now I get there are 28 that have signed on for a #ConCon via the BBATF and 12 that have signed on for a #ConCon via the Convention of States.
7. Make no mistake. Both calls for a #ConCon have the backing of #ALEC, a #KochBrothers vehicle. I’d say they are almost equally frightening. #NoConCon
8. Major correction re post 3: “federal government,” not “federal courts”!!! On iPhone 📱 😐
9. Per the article, there is some concern that the two separate groups (BBATF and Convention of States) could also aggregate the states with submitted applications to get to the magic number of 34!!! #NoConCon
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Study shows that people of all political persuasions are willing to modify their beliefs based on corrective info from reliable sources, but “subjects ‘re-believed’ the false info when retested a week later.” 1/ news.northeastern.edu/2018/06/18/tir…
2/ The author of the article says It may help to warn people in advance that they are likely to forget the correction bc “this helps them mentally tag the bogus information as false.”
3/ It’s also “important that the corrective information be repeated as frequently, and with even greater clarity, than the myth.”
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but elections have been electronically suspect starting long before the Trump/Russia scandal. This article is lulling folks into a false sense of security, which is dangerous. Domestic hackers & insiders were always an equal threat. 1/
I agree, tho not enuf time (and 0 political will) to do this in Nov. Wish it were different. For now I hope to stop states from doubling up on electronics w/ touchscreen ballot markers. Using electronics to count votes is bad enuf. Having them mark our ballots too is nuts. 1/
Nuts except for those who are unable to hand mark their ballots. Once you have hand marked paper ballots they can be either scanned or hand counted (my preference) or both. 2/
Any time u put a machine between the voter and the paper record of voter intent there is an opportunity for programming mischief. Here is just the latest example.: 3/
I’m hoping some of the cyber experts who signed the letter about the risks of using cellular modems to transfer election results can answer this question. Thx! @philipbstark@SEGreenhalgh@rad_atl@jhalderm
Seeing as no one has answered yet, I will say that even if the cellular modems CAN be configured to bypass the internet, we should not have to blindly trust that vendors or whoever else is hired to set them up will do that.
Kathy Rogers, the face & voice of @ESSVote, which has installed CELLULAR MODEMS in tabulators in WI & FL, is cozying up to @DHSgov which refuses to advise states to remove the modems despite a letter from 30 cyber experts & EI groups stating it should do so. #CorruptElections 1/
The notion that cellular modems affect only “unofficial” results is bogus bc, among other reasons, in certain jurisdictions, unofficial results become the official results once added to absentees & provisionals—sometimes w/o ever comparing them to the precinct results tapes! 1/
And Wisconsin doesn’t even require that counties publicly post the results tapes so that the public itself can make this comparison! (I don’t know about Florida, Michigan, & Illinois.) 2/
Thus, we must simply trust that someone trustworthy is conducting this due diligence. In Johnson County, Kansas, the County acknowledged that it does NOT conduct this basic due diligence. 3/