ADVERTISEMENT

Only 20% of the public says it's very confident in the country's elections

  • Thread starter anon_6hv78pr714xta
  • Start date
I am not too PC to say it. I don't want just anybody voting because half of this country knows what is going on in Kim Kardashian's life more than they do the country. That stupidity knows no party. I think there should be a little bit of a convenience barrier to participating because quite a few of the people that don't vote, you don't want voting because it will be a fast track to an idiocracy nanny state. We are half way there now with the minor inconveniences in place as it is.
I get what you’re saying but this is a constitutional right. We are likely looking at the right to carry a weapon without licensure. How do you square these things with that line of thinking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
I get what you’re saying but this is a constitutional right. We are likely looking at the right to carry a weapon without licensure. How do you square these things with that line of thinking?
I wouldn't squash their right to vote. They would all still have the right, but I would have a barrier to participation that at least would flesh out the lazy. Like if you have a day off work, a polling place within 5 minutes of your house, with minimal lines and you still can't find a way to vote; then I don't want you voting.

Edit to add: The simplest way would be a voting app (throwing out the obvious security issues). If literally having a pop up that says "Who do you vote for" is the only way to get heavy participation, then I don't think we necessarily need to make it that easy. There have been real barriers to voting throughout our history, I am ok with a passive barrier that says, "hey, we would love to have you vote but you have to be engaged in the process enough to at least show up."
 
Thanks. Read that backward. Expanded mail-in voting and less social media and cable news will help.
Expanded mail in voting will not help. Historically about 20% of mail in votes are thrown out through challenges. Any instance that could lead to one person walking up to a drop box with a pile of ballots, whether they are valid or not, and submitting them is going to leave questions of validity.

I don't think the right is ever going to trust mail in ballots because there is a belief in the "community organizers" going around and harvesting ballots and the idea that is not always on the up and up. One person. One vote. No accumulators. No worrying about when a vote is postmarked by (a major complaint in the last election). None of that. Provide the places to vote and people have to show up to place their vote unless they have a severe physical disability that would preclude them from doing so, or they are overseas.

Maybe we revisit the mail in voting at some point down the road when trust is reestablished. We are not there right now.
 
I wouldn't squash their right to vote. They would all still have the right, but I would have a barrier to participation that at least would flesh out the lazy. Like if you have a day off work, a polling place within 5 minutes of your house, with minimal lines and you still can't find a way to vote; then I don't want you voting.

Edit to add: The simplest way would be a voting app (throwing out the obvious security issues). If literally having a pop up that says "Who do you vote for" is the only way to get heavy participation, then I don't think we necessarily need to make it that easy. There have been real barriers to voting throughout our history, I am ok with a passive barrier that says, "hey, we would love to have you vote but you have to be engaged in the process enough to at least show up."
Some barriers are necessary to gain the confidence. I’m on record as supporting ID requirements. What we need are uniform and consistent barriers. Texas previously allowed a gun permit as sufficient identification but explicitly disallowed student IDs. That’s targeted and wrong. Florida moved voting locations away from universities. We can’t have that.
 
Head in sand. Ignorance is bliss.

Lol.

So know I'm ignorant because I don't follow the rule that cash shouldn't be put in the mail because you've been told so.

Aren't you the good little sheep (did i do that right)?
 
Lol.

So know I'm ignorant because I don't follow the rule that cash shouldn't be put in the mail because you've been told so.

Aren't you the good little sheep (is that how it works)?
Do you often refer to people that follow manufacturers recommended maintenance schedules, instructions, etc sheep?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Some barriers are necessary to gain the confidence. I’m on record as supporting ID requirements. What we need are uniform and consistent barriers. Texas previously allowed a gun permit as sufficient identification but explicitly disallowed student IDs. That’s targeted and wrong. Florida moved voting locations away from universities. We can’t have that.
I am not opposed to any of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cortez88
Do you often refer to people that follow manufacturers recommended maintenance schedules, instructions, etc sheep?

Did you say the same when Ivermectin came out with their statement or do you pick and choice when you want to be a hypocrite with?
 
That would require an amendment to the US Constitution. THAT will never happen. Or, if you think it might, please explain how.
Or an interpretation of the Constitution relative to a new piece of legislation related to federal elections. That's the more likely outcome.
 
What? Either you’re having a rare episode of poor reading comprehension or my writing isn’t being interpreted as I intend.

I’m not advocating anything. I’m explaining why I don’t accept that the 2020 opposition to mail voting is only because the GOP launched a misinformation campaign against it. I’m explaining there are other factors - human nature mostly - that coupled with poor change management has left people with a poor trust in the process. I’m not advocating anything. I’m speaking on why people didn’t trust.
Ah...that's my bad. I thought your comment that mail-in balloting couldn't possibly be secure was advocacy against mail-in balloting.

I can buy that current opposition isn't solely due to the Trump misinformation campaign. I think the Trump team (not the GOP team) capitalized on concerns that grew out of what was a unique and challenging situation. But, rather than abandon sensible tools for making voting participation as high as possible, I think we'd be better off mitigating the legitimate concerns and addressing what is illegitimately inflaming them.
 
Last edited:
I am not too PC to say it. I don't want just anybody voting because half of this country knows what is going on in Kim Kardashian's life more than they do the country. That stupidity knows no party. I think there should be a little bit of a convenience barrier to participating because quite a few of the people that don't vote, you don't want voting because it will be a fast track to an idiocracy nanny state. We are half way there now with the minor inconveniences in place as it is.
I have some sympathy for this perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
Have no idea. Don't really care either way.

It's $20. It's always gotten here, three times a year, for 20 years now.

If there's some scheme about someone taking birthday cards from mail, I've never heard of it.
According to the Q, stealing mailed birthday cash from Nanas all over the world is financing the underground trafficing of babys to baby eating Democrats in NY, CA and DC $5 at a time.
 
Ah...that's my bad. I thought your comment that mail-in balloting couldn't possibly be secure was advocacy against mail-in balloting.

I can buy that current opposition isn't solely due to the Trump misinformation campaign. I think the Trump team (not the GOP team) capitalized on concerns that few out of what was a unique and challenging situation. But, rather than abandon sensible tools for making voting participation as high as possible, I think we'd be better off mitigating the legitimate concerns and addressing what is illegitimately inflaming them.
No disagreement.
 
I have some sympathy for this perspective.
I don't. It's all good until you're the one that the system decides is too dumb to vote. Didn't peg you as a "rule by the elites" kind of guy, but I think we'd be MUCH better off with substantially higher voter participation. It's not like there aren't already LOTS of uninformed people voting. In fact, I'd wager that they are the great majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
I don't. It's all good until you're the one that the system decides is too dumb to vote. Didn't peg you as a "rule by the elites" kind of guy, but I think we'd be MUCH better off with substantially higher voter participation. It's not like there aren't already LOTS of uninformed people voting. In fact, I'd wager that they are the great majority.
I don’t have to be a “rule by the elites” kind of guy to have some sympathy for that position. I suspect you do, too: do you believe 5 year olds should vote? If not, why not?

your solution sounds like having more uninformed voters= a better result. Do you believe that?

I’m a democracy defender. But I don’t bury my head in the sand as to its weaknesses. And it has A LOT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no trust without transparency. That goes for the 2020 election, 01/06, Epstein, etc. I don't know why that's hard for some to comprehend.



“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.” - JFK
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indianaftw and DANC
Did you say the same when Ivermectin came out with their statement or do you pick and choice when you want to be a hypocrite with?
Do you always answer a question with a question when you know you can’t be truthful with an answer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
There is no trust without transparency. That goes for the 2020 election, 01/06, Epstein, etc. I don't know why that's hard for some to comprehend.



“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.” - JFK
What is hard to comprehend is why so many people say they believe every single isolated unproven report of an irregularity is absolute proof of some sort of massive election fraud that cheated Trump of reelection.

Election irregularities have happened and will always happen so long as we use a mostly-volunteer minimum wage system for election workers instead of the airport/TSA model seeking to achieve zero breaches.

Election fraud simply does not happen in large numbers, ever -- that's because it's just not as profitable as identity theft ! Who do you know that would stand in line for an hour or two (with no food or water in the oppressive states) just to vote once for yet another politician they never heard of and not get paid anything for their time? It just doesn't happen on a large scale, either during in-person voting or mail-in voting.


Your mantra of "transparency" is not persuasive. Everybody saw "transparently" what happened on Jan. 6 (no one was deprived the images), and yet the conservatives deny it ever happened.

On the other hand, just exactly what kind of "transparency" can you yourself provide about Epstein? I doubt you really have secret video showing Epstein hanging himself in a jail cell or of Epstein (or whoever) screwing those young girls.
 
I don’t accept that. I agree that the messaging hurt but it’s not all that hurt it.

It’s new, it’s scary, and it doesn’t “feel right” to people who are used to standing in line and showing an ID to a nice elderly volunteer at a desk at the polling place. It was thrust onto people amidst the most lop-sided media-covered election that I can remember. The crumbling of the Russia investigation, the clear failure to cover anything that could hurt Biden, etc created a storm around the election. And a bunch of states just deciding to extend and augment mail-in without proper change management aided in the aftermath.
But those "people" you sort-of described haven't any understanding of how many irregularities normally happen anyway even in a fair election. The 2020 election did not have an unusual number of irregularities.

Trump and his minions viciously attacked many salt-of-the-earth apple pie Republican election workers just because Trump lost !! No other reason. He just pointed to every single instance as evidence of massive election fraud with, of course, no proof at all that anything beyond a minuscule number of irregularities happened.

I hope you didn't fall for this.
 
But those "people" you sort-of described haven't any understanding of how many irregularities normally happen anyway even in a fair election. The 2020 election did not have an unusual number of irregularities.

Trump and his minions viciously attacked many salt-of-the-earth apple pie Republican election workers just because Trump lost !! No other reason. He just pointed to every single instance as evidence of massive election fraud with, of course, no proof at all that anything beyond a minuscule number of irregularities happened.

I hope you didn't fall for this.
Fall for what?
 
My grandma sends my kids cash in the mail every year for their birthdays. She lives in Texas, we live in Indiana.

What's the point?
My neighbor has 26 grandkids. They send cash. Every year there are grandkids that don't get their cash.
 
Mail-in voting in Florida was certainly very secure. I had to register online with my voter ID card, had to provide a cell number and/or an email address that was already on file from my prior registration for verification, I had to answer security questions such as my state property tax ID from the prior year, and I had to confirm by email or text my identity both when I voted and when my vote was counted. If I had showed up in person I would have been turned away. It happened to others.

Voting in person in Florida in my experience is less secure due to the human element. Sometimes the poll workers ask for ID, sometimes they don't: they just let you sign next to your name on the voter rolls, since they want to keep the line moving. So unless two people try to sign in under the same name and address, nobody knows that anything went wrong.
Yeah, and guess who won Florida!

You've never voted in person in Florida if you think it's less secure. Walking into the polling place there is like walking into a prison - police officers at the entrance and exit. Multiple ID checks. It's nothing like you describe.
 
What? Either you’re having a rare episode of poor reading comprehension or my writing isn’t being interpreted as I intend.

I’m not advocating anything. I’m explaining why I don’t accept that the 2020 opposition to mail voting is only because the GOP launched a misinformation campaign against it. I’m explaining there are other factors - human nature mostly - that coupled with poor change management has left people with a poor trust in the process. I’m not advocating anything. I’m speaking on why people didn’t trust.
You should know by now that pointing out any failings of the 2020 election is an attack on Biden and pro-Trump, according to leftists.
 
What is hard to comprehend is why so many people say they believe every single isolated unproven report of an irregularity is absolute proof of some sort of massive election fraud that cheated Trump of reelection.

Election irregularities have happened and will always happen so long as we use a mostly-volunteer minimum wage system for election workers instead of the airport/TSA model seeking to achieve zero breaches.

Election fraud simply does not happen in large numbers, ever -- that's because it's just not as profitable as identity theft ! Who do you know that would stand in line for an hour or two (with no food or water in the oppressive states) just to vote once for yet another politician they never heard of and not get paid anything for their time? It just doesn't happen on a large scale, either during in-person voting or mail-in voting.


Your mantra of "transparency" is not persuasive. Everybody saw "transparently" what happened on Jan. 6 (no one was deprived the images), and yet the conservatives deny it ever happened.

On the other hand, just exactly what kind of "transparency" can you yourself provide about Epstein? I doubt you really have secret video showing Epstein hanging himself in a jail cell or of Epstein (or whoever) screwing those young girls.
"Election fraud simply does not happen in large numbers, ever"

Oh, really?

 
Fall for what?
You fell for:

"It’s new, it’s scary, and it doesn’t feel right to people who are used to standing in line and showing an ID to a nice elderly volunteer at a desk at the polling place."

"It was thrust onto people amidst the most lop-sided media-covered election that I can remember."

You also fell for the claim that "The crumbling of the Russia investigation, the clear failure to cover anything that could hurt Biden, etc created a storm around the election."

You also fell for the claim that "a bunch of states just deciding to extend and augment mail-in without proper change management aided in the aftermath."

The bottom line is that what conservatives/ Trump supporters still harp on incessantly as "election fraud" is, in fact, tiny and minuscule. The only reason you're talking about it now is that you think your false claims of "election fraud" bolsters a claim that Trump was "cheated." Nobody (including you) is claiming that "election fraud" cheated some unknown candidate for state representative from some little crossroads Georgia district from getting elected to a minor office, even though those offices were physically printed on the same ballot as Trump.

5f89a9ba730bc.image.jpg

Your claims are about Trump and Trump alone, and you fell for it all. There can be no other reason for your post,
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
"Election fraud simply does not happen in large numbers, ever"

Oh, really?

LOL. You went back to disputed evidence from 85-95 years ago to prove what, that your original premise was faulty?
 
You fell for:

"It’s new, it’s scary, and it doesn’t feel right to people who are used to standing in line and showing an ID to a nice elderly volunteer at a desk at the polling place."

"It was thrust onto people amidst the most lop-sided media-covered election that I can remember."

You also fell for the claim that "The crumbling of the Russia investigation, the clear failure to cover anything that could hurt Biden, etc created a storm around the election."

You also fell for the claim that "a bunch of states just deciding to extend and augment mail-in without proper change management aided in the aftermath."

The bottom line is that what conservatives/ Trump supporters still harp on incessantly as "election fraud" is, in fact, tiny and minuscule. The only reason you're talking about it now is that you think your false claims of "election fraud" bolsters a claim that Trump was "cheated." Nobody (including you) is claiming that "election fraud" cheated some unknown candidate for state representative from some little crossroads Georgia district from getting elected to a minor office, even though those offices were physically printed on the same ballot as Trump.

5f89a9ba730bc.image.jpg

Your claims are about Trump and Trump alone, and you fell for it all. There can be no other reason for your post,
Christ. Learn to read. I’m done with you.
 
Third party publisher immunity is interesting. I'm not sure how you lift immunity
You don’t. People need to be smarter. Although I do wonder if places like Facebook could get caught up somehow because they are essentially using their publishing to lure in consumers for advertising purposes. Maybe some kind of truth in advertising legislation. I don’t know.
 
Christ. Learn to read. I’m done with you.
Huh? In your post 45 you rattled off several things that are not only unproven but dubious in the first place. I replied that you fell for these unproven assertions, and you responded as you did,

I can read very well and, in fact, I read your post better and more literally than you did when you wrote it. Go whine somewhere else. You won't get a free pass here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT