Humans And Their Amazing Ability To Adapt.

[RX-79G]

If everyone and their dead grandma are allowed to vote, citizen, non citizen, etc and they are allowed to vote as many times as they want…

Then ID to vote doesn't matter. Until that is the case it would seem that ID to vote is an integral part of maintaining validity and integrity if the voting process. I'm very skeptical of claims that prevent a higher degree of integrity of the voting process, and even more skeptical that it is dominated by one side of the political aisle to advocate against such.

Who said anything about as many times as you want? You have to show up and claim the identity of someone real, and that identity gets a single vote. All the voter fraud cases revolve around people that voted for someone else or shouldn't have been allowed to vote, like a felon.


What's funny is your statements sound just like someone advocating for stronger gun control. "What can it hurt?" "Isn't it important enough to add this extra hoop to jump through?" "Only Democrats want gun control."

 

[American123]

Except that they aren't All that is baseless fear mongering with no actual evidence to support it

You should avoid making super generlized claims that can be proven false by simply 1 instance to the contrary.

 

[American123]

Who said anything about as many times as you want? You have to show up and claim the identity of someone real, and that identity gets a single vote. All the voter fraud cases revolve around people that voted for someone else or shouldn't have been allowed to vote, like a felon.

Voter ID (India) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

India has voter ID, surely if India can figure it out, we can too.

 

[RX-79G]

Voter ID (India) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

India has voter ID, surely if India can figure it out, we can too.

Yeah, it would be much better to live in India. They've got stuff figured out. Any of those places where people were "subjects" rather than citizens.

 

[slimmer13]

I suppose we could do the ole dip your finger in ink, but one party would say that's blackfinger.

 

[American123]

Yeah, it would be much better to live in India. They've got stuff figured out. Any of those places where people were "subjects" rather than citizens.

This reminds me of a thread where I mentioned how criminals were dealt with closer to the 18th century and someone said, "yeah it would be so much better if slavery were legal."

If election integrity was valued and considered important, this wouldn't be very difficult to make happen, the fact that such ardent opposition exists to it shows that there is a major advantage to keeping the status quo.

 

[RX-79G]

This reminds me of a thread where I mentioned how criminals were dealt with closer to the 18th century and someone said, "yeah it would be so much better if slavery were legal."

If election integrity was valued and considered important, this wouldn't be very difficult to make happen, the fact that such ardent opposition exists to it shows that there is a major advantage to keeping the status quo.

I don't follow. Election integrity is important, and the statistics demonstrate that we have excellent integrity.

What is also important is the right to vote and the ability to use that right with a minimum of obstruction to its exercise. We have some obstruction in the form of registration and voter rolls already, but one party wants more obstruction that is likely to interfere with the exercise. Again - would you require a helmet if it made it harder to safely operate a motorcycle? Or would you find a balance between one kind of safety and liberty?

 

[Cavedweller]

SO you dont think a farmer is smart enough to see what the damage they created with pulverization of the ground with disks and harrows did. It is thought that this practice started in the 20's. The problem is that the farmers only knew one way of farming and hence they kept doing it that way. To answer your question you can search google as well as I can for that is how I would have to answer your question. There were multiple factors that caused the dustbowl but repeatedly bad farming year and year certainly helped.

Here is an interesting link I found

Machines in 1930s Agriculture

You stated something as if were fact. I was merely inquiring as to whether you had any sources to support that statement, or whether it was just supposition on your part. It's not up to me to provide evidence to support your arguments.

 

[GWS]

But that court wasn't liberal. 5 of the 7 justices that voted for majority were Republican appointees - 3 from Eisenhower and 2 from Nixon. The dissent was a 1 Nixon and 1 Kennedy appointee. A Republican wrote the opinion.

Yet still, a liberal decision, regardless of who made it. And incorrect

The problem with this is that no law has ever defined fetuses as people. Which is why they usually are not named, inquests aren't held after miscarriages, and when I congratulated my highly religious mother-in-law on becoming a grandmother she protested "Not yet!" because the baby wasn't yet born.

Then how can someone be charged for 2 homicides if he kills a pregnant woman?

Which is not an excuse to kill unborn children, but an acknowledgement that the legal status of a fetus is not codified in law and creates a gray area when it comes to statements like yours about murder.

38 States have fetal homicide laws, which coincidentally would be sufficient to ratify a right to life amendment should a Con-Con ever be called. Is not 38 states codification of a fetus as a living entity with a right to life sufficient proof for you?

Yes. If the government pays your retirement, can they ask what you do with the money? If the government pays you tax credits for your child's education, can they investigate your parenting without cause? Of course privacy is privacy. You want your 4473 background checks posted on a website?

But the government doesn't pay my retirement as much as they are returning money taken me without my having any say so. And from the evidence, money I could have gotten a much better return on had I been allowed to invest it myself. In addition, my 4473's are on a web database, despite that being against the law.
I wonder how long before some liberal judge grants a FOIA request to publish all 4473's. You may be too young to remember when newspapers printed the names and addresses of CCW holders. I-1639 has granted the state access to my HIPPA information if I want to buy a semi-automatic rifle. The internet, security cameras and various laws have rendered a right to privacy moot anyway.

The vast, vast majority weren't riots but protests, and Biden has repeatedly, repeatedly condemned any violence associated with them. Saying otherwise is just a lie. Did you know you were lying, or are you just repeating what you've been told?

Skip the ad-hominem crap. How long did it take for Biden et al to come out against the rioters? How many Democrats were actively supporting the rioters by covering their bail? I'll give you a clue--One of those democrat bail posters is now our vice-president.

And violent confrontations between individuals at BLM protests or Unite the Right protests are going to happen - especially when people do violent things. Like the a-hole rightist who pepper sprayed reporters and was shot by their bodyguard. That doesn't have anything to do with the protest. But its one of those deaths. So were a number of leftists killed by right wing people.

You keep dodging these questions--
How many buildings were looted and/or burned by Unite The Right or Proud Boys or any Right Wing organization?
How many buildings were looted and/or burned by leftist protestors? Why are you afraid to answer that question?

Protests are legal and very American. Both the right and left do them, and both the right and left do them peaceably or not

Absolutely but again How many conservative protests have escalated to a full blown riot with burning and looting?

They are being prosecuted and often with heavy sentences.

Records rebut claims of unequal treatment of Jan. 6 rioters

Some people charged in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and their Republican allies claim the Justice Department is treating them harshly because of their political views.

apnews.com

The main difference is that the Jan. 6 rioters left such huge evidence trails, bragging about themselves on social media, that it was easy to turn all those security videos into identities and arrests.

Yep, they were genuine idiots who let themselves be swept up in the craziness and now they are paying for it.
Where else has the right held a rally/protest and then started rioting and looting. Give me just one more example from the last 50 years.
Now, please answer this if you can:
How many antifa or BLM rioters do you think could have been arrested at the scene, if the police had intervened in the rioting, rather than being restrained by the orders leftist mayors and city councils of Portland, Minneapolis and other cities?

 

[American123]

I don't follow. Election integrity is important, and the statistics demonstrate that we have excellent integrity.

What is also important is the right to vote and the ability to use that right with a minimum of obstruction to its exercise. We have some obstruction in the form of registration and voter rolls already, but one party wants more obstruction that is likely to interfere with the exercise. Again - would you require a helmet if it made it harder to safely operate a motorcycle? Or would you find a balance between one kind of safety and liberty?

The equating motorcycle safety gear to voting ID seems like a false equivalency. The liberty minded decision of motorcycle gear is to let people choose what they are going to wear regardless of how safe/unsafe those decisions are, someone else choosing to or not to wear a helmet does not violate my own choice to wear or not wear one.

The difference with votes however is that every illegitimate, or illegal vote violates other voter's rights to their vote freedom of expression, etc.

So you can say that "voter ID violates rights" - I disagree. Voter ID, if it stops illegitimate/illegal votes from occurring actually protects the votes of others who otherwise would be canceled. If the issue beyond that is simply "well some people don't have ID who vote" - then what you are saying is that some people's votes matter more than others because some votes are already being cancelled with fraud.

The only way for the claim "we have excellent voter integrity" to be true, is if we have significant evidence to prove that voter fraud does not occur and obviously that is not the case.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Requiring voter ID would help prevent voter fraud. Injury traffic accidents are farely rare when you consider the number of cars on the road and yet we have helmet and seat belt laws to help prevent injuries. Voter ID laws help prevent injury to voting integrity.

Equating motorcycle safety gear to voting ID is a false equivalency, that part was correct, but after that it went into the weeds

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the restrictions (helmet and seat belt laws) are not so onerous as to prohibit enjoying that privilege. Additionally they protect others by helping you maintain control of your vehicle (seatbelt) and reduce municipal cost associated with accidents (both of them) Even though accidents are fairly rare Vs the number of cars on the road the effects and costs to the public of those accidents is greatly reduced with helmet and seat belt laws

Voting on the other hand IS a Right, and although *some* restrictions on Rights have been enforced before, they should not be so onerous as to prohibit exercising that Right* and there needs to be a demonstrable reason to restrict the Right in question. Despite the histrionics surrounding so-called "voter fraud" there is no actual evidence (although I have heard that some shocking news will be released "in two weeks") of widespread voter fraud, nor is there solid evidence that Voter ID laws reduce fraud, that the 'injury' to voting integrity is so great as to risk restricting a Right, and there is a documented history of Voter ID laws and similar efforts being used to actively suppress the free exercise of the Right to vote


*Most "Common Sense" firearms laws clearly violate that basic principle

 

[GWS]

We have seatbelt and helmet laws because they don't interfere with driving.

Neither does requiring voter ID. The left has beaten that canard to death. How difficult is it to get a simple photo ID? The way the left talks about it being so hard is insulting to people of color.

 

[GWS]

Equating motorcycle safety gear to voting ID is a false equivalency, that part was correct, but after that it went into the weeds

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the restrictions (helmet and seat belt laws) are not so onerous as to prohibit enjoying that privilege. Additionally they protect others by helping you maintain control of your vehicle (seatbelt) and reduce municipal cost associated with accidents (both of them) Even though accidents are fairly rare Vs the number of cars on the road the effects and costs to the public of those accidents is greatly reduced with helmet and seat belt laws

Voting on the other hand IS a Right, and although *some* restrictions on Rights have been enforced before, they should not be so onerous as to prohibit exercising that Right* and there needs to be a demonstrable reason to restrict the Right in question. Despite the histrionics surrounding so-called "voter fraud" there is no actual evidence (although I have heard that some shocking news will be released "in two weeks") of widespread voter fraud, nor is there solid evidence that Voter ID laws reduce fraud, that the 'injury' to voting integrity is so great as to risk restricting a Right, and there is a documented history of Voter ID laws and similar efforts being used to actively suppress the free exercise of the Right to vote


*Most "Common Sense" firearms laws clearly violate that basic principle

Again I ask how is requiring identification onerous? How difficult is it to get a photo ID? Why do liberals think minorities are incapable of such a simple act?

 

[RX-79G]

Yet still, a liberal decision, regardless of who made it. And incorrect

Liberal can sometimes mean leftist, and sometimes mean libertarian. I've understood it to be more the latter, giving a presumption of the right to make your own mind up about what is more a moral than legal issue.

Then how can someone be charged for 2 homicides if he kills a pregnant woman?

Probably on the presumption that the mother was choosing to carry it to term and that the murderer has no right to interfere.

But the government doesn't pay my retirement as much as they are returning money taken me without my having any say so. And from the evidence, money I could have gotten a much better return on had I been allowed to invest it myself. In addition, my 4473's are on a web database, despite that being against the law.
I wonder how long before some liberal judge grants a FOIA request to publish all 4473's. You may be too young to remember when newspapers printed the names and addresses of CCW holders. I-1639 has granted the state access to my HIPPA information if I want to buy a semi-automatic rifle. The internet, security cameras and various laws have rendered a right to privacy moot anyway.

That's social security. There's also GS and military retirement. Same question.

How long before someone violates the Constitutional right to privacy when it comes to your 4473s? Ask Alito.

How long did it take for Biden et al to come out against the rioters?

I don't know. You said he never did. Which is it?

You keep dodging these questions--
How many buildings were looted and/or burned by Unite The Right or Proud Boys or any Right Wing organization?
How many buildings were looted and/or burned by leftist protestors? Why are you afraid to answer that question?

Why would Proud Boys be looting or burning things because of the death or George Floyd? What is the terrible series of things that happened to white nationalists that would create widespread protests across America? Nothing happened, and there weren't any huge protests held by the right wing.

So it really isn't much of a comparison, is it? Especially when the number of BLM supporters that protested in the US was 15 to 26 million. Which right wing group mobilized to that extent.

(And we're ignoring the possibility that some of the damage and looting was not actual left wing.)

Absolutely but again How many conservative protests have escalated to a full blown riot with burning and looting?

Yeah, you get it. There isn't anything for right wing people to get so upset about. They don't feel like they are targets.

Where else has the right held a rally/protest and then started rioting and looting. Give me just one more example from the last 50 years.

Yeah, 50 years might be tough. The last time something like this happened it was when white people were threatened by blacks going to school with them or having lunch. But how about some of these items:

A Very Abbreviated History of the Destruction of Black Neighborhoods

If you only care about black communities when someone picks up a brick, you don't care at all.

www.esquire.com

I like how the police dropped an actual bomb by helicopter in 1985.

The equating motorcycle safety gear to voting ID seems like a false equivalency. The liberty minded decision of motorcycle gear is to let people choose what they are going to wear regardless of how safe/unsafe those decisions are, someone else choosing to or not to wear a helmet does not violate my own choice to wear or not wear one.

The difference with votes however is that every illegitimate, or illegal vote violates other voter's rights to their vote freedom of expression, etc.

So you can say that "voter ID violates rights" - I disagree. Voter ID, if it stops illegitimate/illegal votes from occurring actually protects the votes of others who otherwise would be canceled. If the issue beyond that is simply "well some people don't have ID who vote" - then what you are saying is that some people's votes matter more than others because some votes are already being cancelled with fraud.

The only way for the claim "we have excellent voter integrity" to be true, is if we have significant evidence to prove that voter fraud does not occur and obviously that is not the case.

Okay, let's do the numbers. The real number of illegal votes in the last election was maybe 1000. Let's round that up to 5000.

The number of voters without ID is north of 15 million. Let's assume many would get ID and the rest would just not vote, so the actual number of people losing their vote to voter ID laws is down to only 5,000,000.

Is the removal of 5000 fraudulent votes worth the voter interference that prevents 5,000,000?


And if so, would you support a program that calculates the likelihood of domestic violence murder based on education and location, and then removes the gun rights of 5,000,000 selected American men in return for saving 5000 lives? Those men would be given the opportunity to go through a process to get their rights back, of course.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Neither does requiring voter ID. The left has beaten that canard to death. How difficult is it to get a simple photo ID? The way the left talks about it being so hard is insulting to people of color.

My issue with that statement (and remember, I am not opposed to the concept of Voter ID) is that saying "how hard is it" is meaningless when we don't know the requirements to get a Voter ID How would you structure the system?

 

[RX-79G]

either does requiring voter ID. The left has beaten that canard to death. How difficult is it to get a simple photo ID? The way the left talks about it being so hard is insulting to people of color.

Did you read the article? Sometimes very hard - especially if your documentation has errors on it, you aren't able to wait for hours at the DMV, etc. A Republican is quoted in the article about why it is a problem.

 

[monkeybutler]

I prefer voters be required to be positively identified, however their ballot is submitted, for a pragmatic reason - to mitigate whining.

 

[RX-79G]

The difference with votes however is that every illegitimate, or illegal vote violates other voter's rights to their vote freedom of expression, etc.

And an impediment to voting impacts 1000 times as many.

 

[RX-79G]

I prefer voters be required to be positively identified, however their ballot is submitted, for a pragmatic reason - to mitigate whining.

Arizona recounted how many times? No end to the whining in sight.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Arizona recounted how many times? No end to the whining in sight.

That's because AZ is full of sissies that don't know how to get things done like they do over in Idaho

Idaho officials are asking Mike Lindell to stop lying about their election results and billing the pillow CEO for the $6,500 they spent refuting his voter-fraud claims

Lindell told Insider he is not going to stop talking about the "crimes of the 2020 election," despite Idaho sending him a cease-and-desist letter.

www.businessinsider.com