Humans And Their Amazing Ability To Adapt.

[RX-79G]

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

Idaho officials must be never-Trumpers of the worst kind.

 

[OldBroad44]

...As an aside I ask: Does a service that is publicly funded qualify a private act....

Interesting question.

If I go to grad school on a publically funded NIH fellowship, are are my grades a matter of public record? Actually no. Grades are considered confidential every university I know about, whoever supports the student and in spite of the fact that the government helps support the school. You have to contact the school and give explicit permission for your records to be released such as to companies or organizations to whom you have applied for jobs.

What about if you have your appendix removed at a hospital partly supported by the public? Does the public have a right to access your medical records? No. Apparently not. Medical records are also considered confidential.

However if someone is arrested by the police while committing a crime, the info as to who they are is released to the media if they are an adult. But not if they are a child. The police and jails are public in both cases. We have laws or rules about making the info public.

It doesn't appear that whether something is publically funded is what determines whether we consider it private or not.

 

[OldBroad44]

...You're telling me people don't already have an ID which is required to transact as an adult in our societies - ....

Doesn't requiring showing an ID every time you vote pretty much eliminate absentee ballots and voting by mail?

I agree its pretty easy to get an ID. But being able to go to a poll and stand in line for hours can depend on not having a job during polling hours, not going to an out of state college, not being in the military, not being elderly, etc. It may, depending on the location of polling places, also require you to own a car and be able to drive.

 

[American123]

Doesn't requiring showing an ID every time you vote pretty much eliminate absentee ballots and voting by mail?

I agree its pretty easy to get an ID. But being able to go to a poll and stand in line for hours can depend on not having a job during polling hours, not going to an out of state college, not being in the military, not being elderly, etc. It may, depending on the location of polling places, also require you to own a car and be able to drive.

Having people who want an absentee ballot fill out a form to get one is entirely different than mass mailing them out to everyone, but ok.

They should do tests that way, mail everyone the test and have them send it back. Promise it was them that filled it out.

 

[OldBroad44]

Verify the voter rolls are cleaned of ineligible voters, and voting in general how does the state assure mailed ballots get to the right address? Cross checks done to prevent fraud when ballot mailed to wrong address?

This can happen. One year recently the mail lady delivered one neighboring house's four ballots to me along with mine. I took them up the street and delivered them in person.

If I had not delivered the ballots to my neighbors they would likely have contacted elections when ballots failed to show up shortly after voters pamphlets, as usual. And the old ballots would have been cancelled and new ones sent. Then at the precinct level the ballot handlers, among other things, check the pile of ballots against a list of ballots that have been invalidated, check signatures against records, etc. So to vote a misdelivered ballot would work only if you could forge an acceptable signature and the lawful recipient sat through the entire election with no ballot and did nothing about it. The signatures actually are all checked by real human beings. If your signature changes dramatically you need to document that so your ballot isn't rejected.

One major way mail-in ballots can potentially be compromised is if mail carriers or others steal the ballots returning from particular areas whose votes they want to exclude. However, Oregon has a number you can call to make sure your mailed-in ballot was received. And if you are suspicious about your mail security you can always put your signed ballot in a local locked drop box or a locked USPO box instead of your mailbox. We Oregonians have been doing all mail-facilitated balloting for many years. It ain't our first rodeo.

 

[American123]

In reflection of this great thread during which we've discussed much - I'm remembering what it is written about Socrates and what he hated about democracy - that everyone got a vote. They got a vote on subjects they possibly had no experience in or new nothing about or had no skin in the game for.

Reflecting on that thought, when America was founded, property owners were the voting population. Now that doesn't align with society as it exists today, nor does prohibiting women or other ethnicities than "white" from voting. However I'd be entirely ok with those living on government subsidies as their means of existence from not having a vote. The concept is representative of the notion that: if you are not self sufficient enough to not need the government to care for you, and tax payers to foot your bill, then your vote is a conflict of interest. Because a voter would naturally never advocate for any group that didn't continue to promise the ability for the voter to remain subsidized in their lifestyle by the government.

(Shrieks - he said some people shouldn't vote just because the government subsidizes their existence and they don't pay their own bills)

Yep.

(Cries of, what about social security, etc etc - well that shouldn't exist either because it is a government run theft scheme anyway but in theory people get back what they paid to some extent so it's not the same)

(Cries - You're silencing the poor!)

I suppose to some extent - but if someone is so financially destitute that they need others to pay for their existence I would question the benefit they would provide in making decisions that alter the course of this nation. Seemingly the culmination of their own choices has already been proof enough that their input could be left out.

(Cries - some people fall on hard times due to no fault of their own, like terrible medical accidents, would you silence their vote too)

Since we have gone away from the "you have to own property to vote" standard - to have consistency in the enforcement of if the government subsidizes your life, then - "yes."

What would this do? Well it would keep people from believing they can vote to get more free stuff from the government.

But what is the true problem - the true problem is that the federal government has strayed so far from what it was originally intended as a federal government that it basically unrecognizable compared to what it was designed to be by the constitution. And if the federal government actually did what it was supposed to do - which is defend our property rights from both foreign and domestic enemies - and basically nothing more. It wouldn't really matter who was elected because the mission would be so specific and so limited that it wouldn't be this massive billions of dollars in effort ordeal to get people elected into those positions of power.

 

[RX-79G]

This can happen. One year recently the mail lady delivered one neighboring house's four ballots to me along with mine. I took them up the street and delivered them in person.

If I had not delivered the ballots to my neighbors they would likely have contacted elections when ballots failed to show up shortly after voters pamphlets, as usual. And the old ballots would have been cancelled and new ones sent. Then at the precinct level the ballot handlers, among other things, check the pile of ballots against a list of ballots that have been invalidated, check signatures against records, etc. So to vote a misdelivered ballot would work only if you could forge an acceptable signature and the lawful recipient sat through the entire election with no ballot and did nothing about it. The signatures actually are all checked by real human beings. If your signature changes dramatically you need to document that so your ballot isn't rejected.

One major way mail-in ballots can potentially be compromised is if mail carriers or others steal the ballots returning from particular areas whose votes they want to exclude. However, Oregon has a number you can call to make sure your mailed-in ballot was received. And if you are suspicious about your mail security you can always put your signed ballot in a local locked drop box or a locked USPO box instead of your mailbox. We Oregonians have been doing all mail-facilitated balloting for many years. It ain't our first rodeo.

WA ballots come with a serial number so you can track your vote online.

 

[arakboss]

...

In reflection of this great thread during which we've discussed much - I'm remembering what it is written about Socrates and what he hated about democracy - that everyone got a vote. They got a vote on subjects they possibly had no experience in or new nothing about or had no skin in the game for.

Reflecting on that thought, when America was founded, property owners were the voting population. Now that doesn't align with society as it exists today, nor does prohibiting women or other ethnicities than "white" from voting. However I'd be entirely ok with those living on government subsidies as their means of existence from not having a vote. The concept is representative of the notion that: if you are not self sufficient enough to not need the government to care for you, and tax payers to foot your bill, then your vote is a conflict of interest. Because a voter would naturally never advocate for any group that didn't continue to promise the ability for the voter to remain subsidized in their lifestyle by the government.

(Shrieks - he said some people shouldn't vote just because the government subsidizes their existence and they don't pay their own bills)

Yep.

(Cries of, what about social security, etc etc - well that shouldn't exist either because it is a government run theft scheme anyway but in theory people get back what they paid to some extent so it's not the same)

(Cries - You're silencing the poor!)

I suppose to some extent - but if someone is so financially destitute that they need others to pay for their existence I would question the benefit they would provide in making decisions that alter the course of this nation. Seemingly the culmination of their own choices has already been proof enough that their input could be left out.

(Cries - some people fall on hard times due to no fault of their own, like terrible medical accidents, would you silence their vote too)

Since we have gone away from the "you have to own property to vote" standard - to have consistency in the enforcement of if the government subsidizes your life, then - "yes."

What would this do? Well it would keep people from believing they can vote to get more free stuff from the government.

But what is the true problem - the true problem is that the federal government has strayed so far from what it was originally intended as a federal government that it basically unrecognizable compared to what it was designed to be by the constitution. And if the federal government actually did what it was supposed to do - which is defend our property rights from both foreign and domestic enemies - and basically nothing more. It wouldn't really matter who was elected because the mission would be so specific and so limited that it wouldn't be this massive billions of dollars in effort ordeal to get people elected into those positions of power.

Adapting to avoid government intrusion in your life would be the ultimate adaption. Of course it would be nearly impossible with the tentacles the goverments have these days.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

What would this do? Well it would keep people from believing they can vote to get more free stuff from the government.

Everyone votes to get themselves more 'free stuff' from the .gov, and Citizens United v. FEC established that not-actually-people could spend as much money as they wanted to help people they thought would make that investment worthwhile, so yeah for them being able to vote themselves more free stuff from the government, I guess?

And you do realize that we had to change the Constitution twice just to allow women or other ethnicities than "white" to vote, right?

 

[OldBroad44]

Actually, being a rich property owner doesn't mean you have a clue about what you're voting on either.

 

[American123]

Everyone votes to get themselves more 'free stuff' from the .gov, and Citizens United v. FEC established that not-actually-people could spend as much money as they wanted to help people they thought would make that investment worthwhile, so yeah for them being able to vote themselves more free stuff from the government, I guess?

And you do realize that we had to change the Constitution twice just to allow women or other ethnicities than "white" to vote, right?

Everyone votes to get themselves more 'free stuff' - I disagree, but what I will agree to is that because of how legalized theft (taxes) is handled in this country that regardless of whether people vote for getting some of that money back or not, they will still be taxes the same - so the game is rigged from the get go in favor of everyone playing 'hungry hungry hippo' and not dealing with the real problem which the federal government at this point is gigantically involved in redistributing income from some Americans to other Americans - if you or I tried to do that we'd be shot as robbers.

Regarding women and non- "white" Americans voting, the founders made it possible to change the constitution for a reason, it worked as intended it seems.

 

[GWS]

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.

I understood it to be a liberal, not libertarian decision. As does most of America.

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

And if she were on her way to get an abortion you're saying the police/DA would only charge for one murder. Their thinking would be "Aah, she was going to kill it anyway." Your arguments are getting thinner and thinner.

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.

As I said before, My privacy is already violated by ATF's retention of those 4473s in defiance of the law.

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

Don't make up words to put in my mouth. I did not say he never denounced the rioters, I was saying that he took an inordinate amount of time before he decided that rioting and looting were bad and he should say something against the destruction

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.)

You're being disingenuous again. I never asked for an example right wing/conservative rioting due to George Floyd. I asked for ANY example of conservatives rioting over anything Inflation, taxes, CRT the bungled Afghanistan withdrawal. Any event at all that had the conservatives burning and looting.
And you still have failed to answer my question of what the damage from BLM and antifa riots cost. Why are you afraid to answer that question?
And we're ignoring the possibility of it being conservatives secretly being the actual looters and wreckers for the same reason we're ignoring the possibility of space aliens doing the looting. Because its a stupid desperate ploy of people afraid to be honest the destructive behavior of the left in the form of BLM and antifa.

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.


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:

Yes. people evolved.

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 police are not a "Conservative" organization and it was done under the orders of the mayor Wilson Goode. Try again

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.

If they don't have IDs how do you come to these numbers? The consensus number of illegal aliens in America is 11 million. Are these people any part of your 15 million?

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.

I think at this point you are arguing with someone else

 

[RX-79G]

Actually, being a rich property owner doesn't mean you have a clue about what you're voting on either.

What if you got your land free from the government? Does that give you a clue, or make you a freeloader, or make your property not count?

I'm so confused.

 

[American123]

Actually, being a rich property owner doesn't mean you have a clue about what you're voting on either.

Completely true! But it does guarantee that you are self sufficient enough that relying on the government for subsidized existence is not necessary which is where the conflict of interest I stated in occurs.

 

[American123]

What if you got your land free from the government? Does that give you a clue, or make you a freeloader, or make your property not count?

I'm so confused.

What were the conditions of the exchange? Why was that person chosen to receive that land? How did the government acquire that land that it was then able to give it away?

I'm trying to understand more of the context so I can respond.

For example. The Louisiana purchase acquired a lot of land from the French (the constitutionality of the president being able to finalize that transaction is debated, for the sake of keeping it relevant to your question I'm going to ignore that debate that I know exists)

It's my understanding that the government handed out parcels of land to homesteaders - basically the government had an interest in that land being made and incorporated into American society. That took effort, homesteading was no joke - so it seems that there was an exchange there where one party was required to put forth tremendous effort while the other party furnished the land for development. It's a grey area for sure, but not equivalent to my high school best friend having 3 kids with all their medical paid for by the state (tax payers) because they were poor, in addition to their apartment, food, etc.

 

[OldBroad44]

What if you got your land free from the government? Does that give you a clue, or make you a freeloader, or make your property not count?

I'm so confused.

Me too. What if your only serious accomplishment was having a rich father? What if you are one beer short of a six pack, one card short of deck, and your elevator doesn't quite go to the top floor?

 

[Ferryman]

In reflection of this great thread during which we've discussed much - I'm remembering what it is written about Socrates and what he hated about democracy - that everyone got a vote...

While I might agree with most of what you said, giving some people the power to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't, no matter how pure their motives, will always lead to my friends getting to vote and every one else can just deal with what we decide. Probably not the right way to run a country.

The problem isn't that everyone gets to vote. The problem is parents, and really, all of us, surrendered the schools to the far left generations ago, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

 

[American123]

Me too. What if your only serious accomplishment was having a rich father? What if you are one beer short of a six pack, one card short of deck, and your elevator doesn't quite go to the top floor?

If the emphasis is not requiring the government to steal from others to then fund your existence then it is irrelevant if a person is financially independent of government subsidy because their family left them inheritance. That seems pretty straight forward to me, I could draw a picture though with labels showing "your money pays your bills, you get to vote" or "the government pays your bills with money it took from other people, you don't get to vote."

 

[American123]

While I might agree with most of what you said, giving some people the power to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't, no matter how pure their motives, will always lead to my friends getting to vote and every one else can just deal with what we decide. Probably not the right way to run a country.

The problem isn't that everyone gets to vote. The problem is parents, and really, all of us, surrendered the schools to the far left generations ago, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

The founders would disagree with that idea when they set up a nation where only property owners could vote. Owning property seems rather immune from "my friends get to vote and you don't" but even in my earlier statement I said that restricting voting to property owership doesn't align with our society as much anymore but I would support the restriction to voting to people who are not having their existence subsidized by tax payers through theft that the government then redistributed.

 

[RX-79G]

I understood it to be a liberal, not libertarian decision. As does most of America.

This was back when conservative didn't mean religious.

And if she were on her way to get an abortion you're saying the police/DA would only charge for one murder. Their thinking would be "Aah, she was going to kill it anyway." Your rguments are getting thinner and thinner.

It's not really an argument. The reason people get charged with two murders is the same reason people get charged with "carrying a gun in a school zone" after they kill 20 people. Added charges makes the sentence longer.

Don't make up words to put in my mouth. I did not say he never denounced the rioters, I was saying that he took an inordinate amount of time before he decided that rioting and looting were bad and he should say something against the destruction

He took 5 days from the death of George Floyd on May 25 to denounce violence during protests, which weren't immediately destructive. So 2 days? May 31. Then again on June 2. I'll bet you saw that fake tweet that says it was August 30, right?

I asked for ANY example of conservatives rioting over anything Inflation, taxes, CRT the bungled Afghanistan withdrawal. Any event at all that had the conservatives burning and looting.

So Jan. 6th doesn't count? What event caused millions of conservatives to protest anything? You can't have a protest that turns into a riot if you don't have anything to protest and just stay home.

And you still have failed to answer my question of what the damage from BLM and antifa riots cost. Why are you afraid to answer that question?

There are no "BLM riots" or "antifa riots". BLM is a slogan and a non-profit that does not control protests. Antifa is not an organization, but a description of people that antagonize right wing protestors. I don't know who burned what or looted - individuals did that, not members of a conspiracy. What organization organized the LA riots, Jan. 6 or the Tulsa massacre? Same problem. No one group did.

And some of the damage was done by right wing folks who wanted to taint the protests. But who is ultimately to blame for every incident can only be determined by arresting people and getting confessions.

I mean, you understand what a riot is, right? If you want to blame someone for the protests, Derek Chauvin is already in prison.

If they don't have IDs how do you come to these numbers? The consensus number of illegal aliens in America is 11 million. Are these people any part of your 15 million?

Because we have a census and voter registration and social security and ID databases. US citizens are documented many ways.

I think at this point you are arguing with someone else

Correct. It was a response to American 123. Are you ignoring his posts?