Why do the Republicans want to stop blacks from voting?

[Droid12345]

I will take exception to your last sentence. The integrity of voting has been compromised due to early voting and not trusting the process. The elections need to be decided in a short period of time without delay. People don’t trust it anymore and I’m in that camp.

This is not an argument that early voting is any more susceptible to fraud than Election Day voting. Nor is it an argument that expanded poll hours or any-time voter registration lead to fraud. The integrity of voting has not been compromised, and the fact that some people believe it has been is a marketing problem, not a security problem. Eliminating early voting, for instance, will no absolutely nothing to increase election security.

Also, if you want the count to be done quickly for a fast result, more people voting early would help. Easier to count 150 million votes over the course of a month than to do it all in one day.

 

[SKYDOG]

I’m guessing you had zero issues with early voting four years ago, though.

You would be wrong.

 

[PurdueFan1]

You would be wrong.

Sure you were. Clutching some big pearls here, that’s for sure.

 

[indy35]

I will take exception to your last sentence. The integrity of voting has been compromised due to early voting and not trusting the process. The elections need to be decided in a short period of time without delay. People don’t trust it anymore and I’m in that camp.

I knew you were a pretty dumb person, but this post takes the cake. You don’t trust it because of your ignorance, not because there are any legitimate issues with early voting. There is absolutely nothing about early voting that in any way compromises the integrity of an election.

 

[indy35]

Sure you were. Clutching some big pearls here, that’s for sure.

Are you doubting that he was as dumb 4 years ago as he is today?

 

[fish bowl]

Are you doubting that he was as dumb 4 years ago as he is today?

Keep your hate over on Reddit! Does it make you happy to constantly hate on the internet? There are mental health facilities in the Indianapolis area that can help you, Indy35. We all hope you get the help you need!

 

[bonefish1]

This is an example of you being out of touch. Blacks are the ones complaining about this. I hear it all the time. This voter suppression laws started in 2009 after Obama was elected. That is where the racism comes in. Voter ID was never an issue for the the Republicans until he got elected. Since then state GOP lawmakers have been changing laws that blacks use to do. These include Sunday voting, known in the black community as “Souls to the Polls”, voting early, absentee voting etc.

Why can't blacks vote Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday? If they can't do a souls to the polls on a Sunday, do they give up? They must not want to vote very bad then.

 

[bonefish1]

Your black friends won't talk about it unless you ask them about the issue. Voter suppression probably does not effect them directly. It doesn't effect me directly. I vote early voting. However, for a lot of blacks it does. Like I said, a lot of blacks voted on Sundays after church, now cannot. A lot of blacks vote absentee, now being restricted. In 2009 when this voter suppression started there were a lot of elderly blacks that could not vote after voting for 60 plus years because they did not not have a state ID. Some did not have their birth certificate or transportation to get one. Just be cause or two black people that you know aren't disenfranchised doesn't mean that it does not happen. Ask your black friends about this issue and report back on what they say.

This is a serious question because I don't know:
Do you need ID...
to get medicaid?
To get welfare?
To get social security?
To pick up prescription medications?
To submit a tax return or get a refund?
To cash or deposit a check?
To get a stimulus check?

 

[bonefish1]

Bullshit! I'm calling MAJOR bullshit! First of all, voter ID has been a thing for much longer than 2009. In 2002 is when it shifted to some sort of government ID with the "Help America Vote Act of 2002" for federal elections. States have required some kind of ID as far back as 1950, but it shifted to having to have a form of government ID in 2006.

I've seen multiple people go and interview black people about this and they were all offended that people believe that they cannot get an ID to vote and considered that notion racist. In actuality it's bigotry of low expectations. I would have to call bullshit if someone claims that they are incapable of getting a drivers license to vote unless they aren't a citizen of the US.

The term is actually "Soft bigotry of low expectations". And Democrats play it to perfection while at the same time selling the victimhood story to a bunch of head nodders.

 

[BNIBoiler]

This is a serious question because I don't know:
Do you need ID...
to get medicaid?
To get welfare?
To get social security?
To pick up prescription medications?
To submit a tax return or get a refund?
To cash or deposit a check?
To get a stimulus check?

I’m telling you, requiring ID to vote was NOT an issue prior to Obama.

 

[Droid12345]

This is a serious question because I don't know:
Do you need ID...
to get medicaid?
To get welfare?
To get social security?
To pick up prescription medications?
To submit a tax return or get a refund?
To cash or deposit a check?
To get a stimulus check?

I'm presuming that you're referring to photo ID specifically, which is what the voter ID laws refer to. I could be wrong on some of these as I haven't researched thoroughly, but a quick search suggests:

Do you need ID...
to get medicaid? - appears to depend on which state
To get welfare? - appears to depend on which state
To get social security? - no
To pick up prescription medications? - appears to depend both on which state and which drug
To submit a tax return or get a refund? - no
To cash or deposit a check? - not usually, unless you don't have an account at said bank, though an ID was likely required to open the account
To get a stimulus check? - no

 

[vinsar]

I'm presuming that you're referring to photo ID specifically, which is what the voter ID laws refer to. I could be wrong on some of these as I haven't researched thoroughly, but a quick search suggests:

Do you need ID...
to get medicaid? - appears to depend on which state
To get welfare? - appears to depend on which state
To get social security? - no
To pick up prescription medications? - appears to depend both on which state and which drug
To submit a tax return or get a refund? - no
To cash or deposit a check? - not usually, unless you don't have an account at said bank, though an ID was likely required to open the account
To get a stimulus check? - no

What bank do you bank at that does not require an ID to cash a check? I have been with BMO Harris Bank for 30 years and if I am getting cash back, an ID is required.

 

[boilersteel]

What bank do you bank at that does not require an ID to cash a check? I have been with BMO Harris Bank for 30 years and if I am getting cash back, an ID is required.

I deposit checks and pull cash from an ATM without an ID several times a month.

 

[boilersteel]

Why can’t all people just vote on Election Day Tuesday? If people have jobs, employers give them time off to vote on that day. What excuses am I missing since this was what we used to do?

That is not true. You're employer doesn't have to let you off in a lot of states. Here's the requirements by state:

Your Election Day Time-off Rights: A State-By-State Guide

Check this election day time off state guide to know paid and unpaid time-off policies for voting in different states.

www.replicon.com

 

[Bruce1]

I deposit checks and pull cash from an ATM without an ID several times a month.

Uh, I don’t think so. That Debit card is a that is carefully monitored 24/7 by the bank. in addition, the bank doesn’t give you the money until it has carefully checked out the transaction including making a video of the ATM experience. If the Gov monitored voters as tightly as banks monitors us there would be an uproar.

 

[vinsar]

I deposit checks and pull cash from an ATM without an ID several times a month.

I am talking about cashing a check...getting cash back. Can you cash a check at an ATM. I know you can deposit a check via smart phone.
Also, if you write a check to purchase something...ID required. For you youngsters people still write checks. Prescription drugs and now Allegra D, Benadryl...etc
Not needing an ID to vote is absolutely asinine.

 

[tjreese]

Employers often don't give time off for voting, and many folks can't afford to give up the hours. Make Election Day a national holiday and maybe this could work.

Maybe not today...I have not followed this, but Indiana used to have a law...soemthing like an employer has to give ample time to vote to workers. I know this due to some salary union people with cars trying to use it at Chrysler decades ago. The intent of the law and origin was when horses were primary transportation and thinking release time for those with true issues was 4 hours and remember those trying to get off at 2 PM. The reality is that people can vote, should have positive identification, should have very few exceptions to not vote in person, and even then require some sort of validation requiring clear voter identification to prevent as much fraud as possible. We know fraud exists and we know diversions from reality are voter suppression from the same people that go where they want when they want. Why would anyone not want the most legitimate, accurate vote possible? That said, any attempt to not reduce the potential for fraud tells everything suspected.

BTW, what course descriptions did you teach (not numbers) to grad students?

 

[tjreese]

I’m guessing you had zero issues with early voting four years ago, though.

By any chance could I have ran into you at Sams getting gas the other day?

 

[Sophie1970]

I deposit checks and pull cash from an ATM without an ID several times a month.

You just walk up to an ATM and cash starts shooting out at you? Tell me where I can find this ATM you speak of. The ATM’s I get cash from require a card and PIN.

 

[Droid12345]

What bank do you bank at that does not require an ID to cash a check? I have been with BMO Harris Bank for 30 years and if I am getting cash back, an ID is required.

It's been a long time since I actually went to a physical bank, so it's entirely possible this policy has changed, but usually having your member card is sufficient. That was also the case in my youth working as a bank teller. Customer gives me their member card and I pull up their account. ATM cards, bank member cards, and PINs are not photo ID as is the issue at hand here. You don't need your driver's license to get cash from the ATM. If you could vote with your social security card or birth certificate, something that everyone is given for free and without any additional effort, the conversation would be different.

Anyway, I don't have too much of a problem with voter ID (again, as long as the ID can be obtained for free and conveniently) as studies suggest it has not had an effect on voter turnout. Those same studies also suggest it has not had an effect on election security, so I don't know why everyone is all bent out of shape about requiring it. People don't go to the polls pretending to be other people to the extent that it's anything to be concerned about. Voter ID is a solution that's searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

A new study finds voter ID laws don’t reduce voter fraud — or voter turnout

The laws don’t seem to do what critics fear or proponents hope.

www.vox.com

 

[tjreese]

It's been a long time since I actually went to a physical bank, so it's entirely possible this policy has changed, but usually having your member card is sufficient. That was also the case in my youth working as a bank teller. Customer gives me their member card and I pull up their account. ATM cards, bank member cards, and PINs are not photo ID as is the issue at hand here. You don't need your driver's license to get cash from the ATM. If you could vote with your social security card or birth certificate, something that everyone is given for free and without any additional effort, the conversation would be different.

Anyway, I don't have too much of a problem with voter ID (again, as long as the ID can be obtained for free and conveniently) as studies suggest it has not had an effect on voter turnout. Those same studies also suggest it has not had an effect on election security, so I don't know why everyone is all bent out of shape about requiring it. People don't go to the polls pretending to be other people to the extent that it's anything to be concerned about. Voter ID is a solution that's searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

A new study finds voter ID laws don’t reduce voter fraud — or voter turnout

The laws don’t seem to do what critics fear or proponents hope.

www.vox.com

actually without a link, why would anyone not afraid of fraud being exposed be against the rest of the country believing in a system of legitimacy? Seriously, or do we just want someone to tell us its alright for our bedtime story? What is more important that taking every step possible to ensure fraud does NOT exist? Why...why the fight against something that is not believed to be important by those that fight against it? It can't be waste of money...I mean that would be easy to disprove. Why would "we" ever think the country can believe in an election if the MANY in the country believes that fraud is in play in the future? I'd show those damn people on the other side by agreeing with the other side on effective voter verification to prove to them! We know the statistical abnormalites of the last election and even your link doesn't state suppression of voters voting. Shouldn't everyone want satisfaction in knowing their vote...whatever it is not being scrapped due to some illegal vote? And if voter suppression does not exist...why are the democrats trying to keep the "special" rules "accepted this year" in place in future years?

Even in the local elections...fraud as small as it may be can have big effects. What would be a reason to not have things in place the prevent fraud? Legitimate elections is what serparates many countries. Teh USA needs to do everything possible to have a secure election process...absent diversionary tactics to prevent it.

Then...maybe some light can be shown on all those in office that have a wealth much greater than the salary warrants for investigation. In addition to having a secure, legitimate election is there any reason why those who have grown wealth above and beyond the salary should not be investigated? Is there a reason why voters should not want both things to happen? How does this even get debated?

 

[Droid12345]

actually without a link, why would anyone not afraid of fraud being exposed be against the rest of the country believing in a system of legitimacy? Seriously, or do we just want someone to tell us its alright for our bedtime story? What is more important that taking every step possible to ensure fraud does NOT exist? Why...why the fight against something that is not believed to be important by those that fight against it? It can't be waste of money...I mean that would be easy to disprove. Why would "we" ever think the country can believe in an election if the MANY in the country believes that fraud is in play in the future? I'd show those damn people on the other side by agreeing with the other side on effective voter verification to prove to them! We know the statistical abnormalites of the last election and even your link doesn't state suppression of voters voting. Shouldn't everyone want satisfaction in knowing their vote...whatever it is not being scrapped due to some illegal vote? And if voter suppression does not exist...why are the democrats trying to keep the "special" rules "accepted this year" in place in future years?

Even in the local elections...fraud as small as it may be can have big effects. What would be a reason to not have things in place the prevent fraud? Legitimate elections is what serparates many countries. Teh USA needs to do everything possible to have a secure election process...absent diversionary tactics to prevent it.

Then...maybe some light can be shown on all those in office that have a wealth much greater than the salary warrants for investigation. In addition to having a secure, legitimate election is there any reason why those who have grown wealth above and beyond the salary should not be investigated? Is there a reason why voters should not want both things to happen? How does this even get debated?

The only reason people believe we have a voter fraud problem is because some prominent people keep saying "we have a voter fraud problem" and many people believe them, even though it's not really true. Check out the Heritage Foundation's (right-leaning think tank) voter fraud database. There's basically none to speak of, and there are already systems in place to prevent it.

The link I posted suggests voter ID laws, specifically, have not suppressed turnout, hence why I have said I don't have a huge problem with that concept in principle, as long as said voter ID is free and easy to obtain. That does not mean that the intent isn't to suppress votes with voter ID laws, even if they are unsuccessful in doing so. From the article:

Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

Or from the founder of the Heritage Foundation:

Or as Trump himself put it, if there were more mail voting, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

There is also no legitimate voter fraud argument for restricting early voting days, poll hours, or the registration window. Those are blatant attempts at voter suppression. Voting a week early, or at 9:00 PM, or on the same day you registered is no more susceptible to fraud than voting at noon on Election Day after registering months before.

Democrats would like to keep the "special" rules because, as we can clearly see, voter turnout was especially high this cycle with those accommodations in place. Democrats, like Republicans, are political creatures, and they know that higher turnout has traditionally increased their odds of winning. But, the fact that Democrats may benefit from it doesn't change the fact that more people voting is a good thing in a democratic country. Both parties are fighting for rules they think will help them win. It just so happens that Republicans believe getting fewer people to vote will help them win while Democrats believe getting more people to vote will help them win. In a vacuum, one of those two goals is more virtuous than the other.

 

[BuilderBob6]

actually without a link, why would anyone not afraid of fraud being exposed be against the rest of the country believing in a system of legitimacy? Seriously, or do we just want someone to tell us its alright for our bedtime story? What is more important that taking every step possible to ensure fraud does NOT exist? Why...why the fight against something that is not believed to be important by those that fight against it? It can't be waste of money...I mean that would be easy to disprove. Why would "we" ever think the country can believe in an election if the MANY in the country believes that fraud is in play in the future? I'd show those damn people on the other side by agreeing with the other side on effective voter verification to prove to them! We know the statistical abnormalites of the last election and even your link doesn't state suppression of voters voting. Shouldn't everyone want satisfaction in knowing their vote...whatever it is not being scrapped due to some illegal vote? And if voter suppression does not exist...why are the democrats trying to keep the "special" rules "accepted this year" in place in future years?

Even in the local elections...fraud as small as it may be can have big effects. What would be a reason to not have things in place the prevent fraud? Legitimate elections is what serparates many countries. Teh USA needs to do everything possible to have a secure election process...absent diversionary tactics to prevent it.

Then...maybe some light can be shown on all those in office that have a wealth much greater than the salary warrants for investigation. In addition to having a secure, legitimate election is there any reason why those who have grown wealth above and beyond the salary should not be investigated? Is there a reason why voters should not want both things to happen? How does this even get debated?

It's pretty simple. The people that don't believe in the legitimacy of this election have that opinion because the guy that lost and in whom they trust TOLD THEM SO. Before the election happened he told them that if he lost it would be because it was rigged, and he STILL says that today.

 

[PurdueFan1]

By any chance could I have ran into you at Sams getting gas the other day?

No

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

If libs didn't let illegals in by the millions it wouldn't be such an issue. No border security, no election security. I've said it before my 99 cent amazon purchase gets more scrutiny and accountability than my vote for the most powerful people in the world. stupid. It's not the 1800s anymore. ID required.

 

[tjreese]

The only reason people believe we have a voter fraud problem is because some prominent people keep saying "we have a voter fraud problem" and many people believe them, even though it's not really true. Check out the Heritage Foundation's (right-leaning think tank) voter fraud database. There's basically none to speak of, and there are already systems in place to prevent it.

The link I posted suggests voter ID laws, specifically, have not suppressed turnout, hence why I have said I don't have a huge problem with that concept in principle, as long as said voter ID is free and easy to obtain. That does not mean that the intent isn't to suppress votes with voter ID laws, even if they are unsuccessful in doing so. From the article:

Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

Or from the founder of the Heritage Foundation:

View embedded media

Or as Trump himself put it, if there were more mail voting, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

There is also no legitimate voter fraud argument for restricting early voting days, poll hours, or the registration window. Those are blatant attempts at voter suppression. Voting a week early, or at 9:00 PM, or on the same day you registered is no more susceptible to fraud than voting at noon on Election Day after registering months before.

Democrats would like to keep the "special" rules because, as we can clearly see, voter turnout was especially high this cycle with those accommodations in place. Democrats, like Republicans, are political creatures, and they know that higher turnout has traditionally increased their odds of winning. But, the fact that Democrats may benefit from it doesn't change the fact that more people voting is a good thing in a democratic country. Both parties are fighting for rules they think will help them win. It just so happens that Republicans believe getting fewer people to vote will help them win while Democrats believe getting more people to vote will help them win. In a vacuum, one of those two goals is more virtuous than the other.

I do not Care about a link or an article. Neither answers my question...why wouldn't the USA want to ensure fraud is impossible and why don't more people care about investigation into political wealth. Those two questions I have. If interested answer those. Those questions are independent of a link. Are those things needed or not?

 

[tjreese]

It's pretty simple. The people that don't believe in the legitimacy of this election have that opinion because the guy that lost and in whom they trust TOLD THEM SO. Before the election happened he told them that if he lost it would be because it was rigged, and he STILL says that today.

You may answer my two questions if you desire. I have no interest in another's opinion and they don't address my two questions. Those questions are easy and straightforward and totally independent of a mouth piece. They really are quite simple and not confusing and have no relationship to finding an opinion to speak for you or droi

 

[BoilerBiker]

why don't more people care about investigation into political wealth.

thats how our system works.

why wouldn't the USA want to ensure fraud is impossible

plastic ID cards being replaced by say implanted ID chips.
government might like those improvements.

 

[Droid12345]

I do not Care about a link or an article. Neither answers my question...why wouldn't the USA want to ensure fraud is impossible and why don't more people care about investigation into political wealth. Those two questions I have. If interested answer those. Those questions are independent of a link. Are those things needed or not?

The USA DOES work to ensure fraud is prevented. There is no way to make it "impossible." The question at hand here is whether voter ID, restricting polling days/hours, and narrowing registration windows actually does anything to make the elections more secure than they already are. Evidence suggests, in the case of voter ID, that it doesn't have a demonstrable effect.

I care about political wealth, but that's not the topic of discussion. But, since you brought it up, let's have publicly financed elections so that no one, rich or poor, can donate to a political candidate. Lobby all you want, but you wouldn't be able to make political donations beholden to your politician voting a certain way. This would also remove fundraising inequalities between the parties. It's not clear how much impact it actually has, but, in my view, one shouldn't win elections simply by raising way more money than the opponent. Remove money as a consideration and get elected based on your ideas, not on your fundraising.

 

[Droid12345]

If libs didn't let illegals in by the millions it wouldn't be such an issue. No border security, no election security. I've said it before my 99 cent amazon purchase gets more scrutiny and accountability than my vote for the most powerful people in the world. stupid. It's not the 1800s anymore. ID required.

I don't understand how these two things are related, unless you're suggesting that illegal immigrants are voting despite not being able to register to do so. If that's your claim, it requires evidence.

 

[tjreese]

The USA DOES work to ensure fraud is prevented. There is no way to make it "impossible." The question at hand here is whether voter ID, restricting polling days/hours, and narrowing registration windows actually does anything to make the elections more secure than they already are. Evidence suggests, in the case of voter ID, that it doesn't have a demonstrable effect.

I care about political wealth, but that's not the topic of discussion. But, since you brought it up, let's have publicly financed elections so that no one, rich or poor, can donate to a political candidate. Lobby all you want, but you wouldn't be able to make political donations beholden to your politician voting a certain way. Would also remove fundraising inequalities between the parties. It's not clear how much impact it actually has, but, in my view, one shouldn't win elections simply by raising way more money than the opponent. Remove money as a consideration and get elected based on your ideas, not on your fundraising.

No, the question at hand is what I asked and can't make it much simpler. Do YOU believe that every attempt should be made to eliminate fraud? Do you believe that politicians regardless of party should be investigated if their wealth grown in office exceeds reason.

All this extra nonsense is unwarranted. Every single person should be able to answer on their own a simple yes. Nothing else is of value to the questions

 

[PUBV]

actually without a link, why would anyone not afraid of fraud being exposed be against the rest of the country believing in a system of legitimacy? Seriously, or do we just want someone to tell us its alright for our bedtime story? What is more important that taking every step possible to ensure fraud does NOT exist? Why...why the fight against something that is not believed to be important by those that fight against it? It can't be waste of money...I mean that would be easy to disprove. Why would "we" ever think the country can believe in an election if the MANY in the country believes that fraud is in play in the future? I'd show those damn people on the other side by agreeing with the other side on effective voter verification to prove to them! We know the statistical abnormalites of the last election and even your link doesn't state suppression of voters voting. Shouldn't everyone want satisfaction in knowing their vote...whatever it is not being scrapped due to some illegal vote? And if voter suppression does not exist...why are the democrats trying to keep the "special" rules "accepted this year" in place in future years?

Even in the local elections...fraud as small as it may be can have big effects. What would be a reason to not have things in place the prevent fraud? Legitimate elections is what serparates many countries. Teh USA needs to do everything possible to have a secure election process...absent diversionary tactics to prevent it.

Then...maybe some light can be shown on all those in office that have a wealth much greater than the salary warrants for investigation. In addition to having a secure, legitimate election is there any reason why those who have grown wealth above and beyond the salary should not be investigated? Is there a reason why voters should not want both things to happen? How does this even get debated?

The most secure election ever, election and government officials from both parties have stated this numerous times. What needs to be done to make it legitimate in your eyes? As has become painfully obvious over the last few years, the Many are prone to believe anything repeated to them many times. The bedlam of January the 6th shows how deeply some of the Many believe. Seriously, do we need to believe there is a boogeyman in our closet?

 

[tjreese]

The most secure election ever, election and government officials from both parties have stated this numerous times. What needs to be done to make it legitimate in your eyes? As has become painfully obvious over the last few years, the Many are prone to believe anything repeated to them many times. The bedlam of January the 6th shows how deeply some of the Many believe. Seriously, do we need to believe there is a boogeyman in our closet?

You are welcome to answer my two questions on your own. They are quite simple?

 

[Droid12345]

No, the question at hand is what I asked and can't make it much simpler. Do YOU believe that every attempt should be made to eliminate fraud? Do you believe that politicians regardless of party should be investigated if their wealth grown in office exceeds reason.

All this extra nonsense is unwarranted. Every single person should be able to answer on their own a simple yes. Nothing else is of value to the questions

Political wealth is not the topic of this thread, that's what I meant by it's not the question at hand. Investigations should take place if there is probable cause to do so. Someone simply getting rich is not enough reason to do so, as there are legitimate and legal ways someone in politics may earn money outside their government position.

No, I don't believe "every attempt" should be made to eliminate fraud, because we could go a long way down that road. I would say, for example, that implanting ID microchips in all citizens that must be scanned in order to vote should not be required. It would make fraud more difficult, but would seem to be a violation of body autonomy. Reasonable measures should be, and are, taken to prevent election fraud.

 

[boilersteel]

You just walk up to an ATM and cash starts shooting out at you? Tell me where I can find this ATM you speak of. The ATM’s I get cash from require a card and PIN.

Of course you use a card and a PIN but not have a photo ID. I thought a photo ID is what we were talking about. Are you intentionally acting dense?

 

[tjreese]

Political wealth is not the topic of this thread, that's what I meant by it's not the question at hand. Investigations should take place if there is probable cause to do so. Someone simply getting rich is not enough reason to do so, as there are legitimate and legal ways someone in politics may earn money outside their government position.

No, I don't believe "every attempt" should be made to eliminate fraud, because we could go a long way down that road. I would say, for example, that implanting ID microchips in all citizens that must be scanned in order to vote should not be required. It would make fraud more difficult, but would seem to be a violation of body autonomy. Reasonable measures should be, and are, taken to prevent election fraud.

You either believe legitimacy as utmost importance or not. The rest is trying to qualify, weight another's opinion and such rather than being 100% for or 100% against. The other comments are trying to weigh in your mind whether you want to ensure it or not.

Just say, no I really don't care if those things are addressed or not because I'm not asking the weighting and nuancing of someone's opinion. I think both should be ensured to everyone's reasonable satisfaction. If you don't, that is fine. Your qualifiers have nothing to do with the question. If they are not that important to you, who am I to say you are Wrong? However, if you think it is extremely important to the survival of the Republic, then reasonable can agree or disagree on the methods to get there.

There is no trick to my questions. I think they are critical to ensure...others don't.

 

[Droid12345]

However, if you think it is extremely important to the survival of the Republic, then reasonable can agree or disagree on the methods to get there.

On this, we can agree. Election security is important and reasonable people can disagree on how to get there. Many of us think we should remain vigilant in case people figure out new ways to take advantage of the system, but that, by and large, we're already pretty much there. The limited amount of voter fraud that happens is discovered and dealt with. It is no more possible to eliminate 100% of voter fraud than it is to eliminate 100% of shoplifting. If there were real, legitimate evidence that our elections were NOT secure, then we should absolutely make policy changes to address it. But, there just isn't.

The rest is trying to qualify, weight another's opinion and such rather than being 100% for or 100% against.

Totally TIC:

😂😂😂

Good chat, I'm gonna get ready to watch the game now. Boiler up!

 

[PUBV]

You are welcome to answer my two questions on your own. They are quite simple?

Of course I want elections to be secure. You’ll have to define reasonable wealth for your 2nd question since I’m only allowed yes/no answers while You seem to only be allowed lengthy word salad responses🤔
Go Boilers!

 

[tjreese]

On this, we can agree. Election security is important and reasonable people can disagree on how to get there. Many of us think we should remain vigilant in case people figure out new ways to take advantage of the system, but that, by and large, we're already pretty much there. The limited amount of voter fraud that happens is discovered and dealt with. It is no more possible to eliminate 100% of voter fraud than it is to eliminate 100% of shoplifting. If there were real, legitimate evidence that our elections were NOT secure, then we should absolutely make policy changes to address it. But, there just isn't.

Good chat, I'm gonna get ready to watch the game now. Boiler up!



Totally TIC:

😂😂😂

you already voiced an opinion of limited and dealt with. Many would disagree. I would like to see an effort to provide evidence that fraud will not happen because there are MANY statistical abnormalities, deposition, numbers of things that can lead reasonable people to disagree on "limited" and "dealt with". If important people should want nothing less than satisfaction their vote was not compromised. Something less than that satisfaction by the general public in high percentage numbers needs further work

 

[tjreese]

Of course I want elections to be secure. You’ll have to define reasonable wealth for your 2nd question since I’m only allowed yes/no answers while You seem to only be allowed lengthy word salad responses🤔
Go Boilers!

Good, my questions were not lengthy. My response in trying to word my questions in an easier manner due to lengthy responses grew mine. There are several people that make 150 k...how does the growth of politicians compare? Can explanations provide reasonable answers to the legitimacy of several million dollars of wealth...in a flippant answer quickly. Just think everyone should be concerned...