Then you aren't reading this forum very closely.I don’t think any conservative thinks or believes this.
Then you aren't reading this forum very closely.I don’t think any conservative thinks or believes this.
Guilty. I don’t read it very closely. Links I should read?Then you aren't reading this forum very closely.
Did not Brad say if you lose your ID, tough luck, you can't vote?I don’t think any conservative thinks or believes this.
I don’t know.Did not Brad say if you lose your ID, tough luck, you can't vote?
It was what I was replying to when you quoted me.I don’t know.
To me, the bigger problem right now is perceived illegitimacy of the system and ease of administration.This reminds me of a discussion I believe with Aloha but one of the traditional conservatives. I suggested on government programs, conservatives would rather there be no fraud or waste even if that meant some entitled were incorrectly blocked. Liberals would put up with some waste and fraud so long as all entitled get what they are entitled to.
Many conservatives seem to be saying they are ok with legal voters being disenfranchised if it means no fraud, liberals will accept some fraud over disenfranchisement.
IU women up 45-14 in their first game. It actually isn't that close
I said ID. You can have a form of ID without a picture. Use one with a signature. Or, soon, maybe via thumbprint.Aren't the Amish prohibited to have photos by religion. So they cannot vote?
You sure about that?Voter ID isn't an issue, no matter how many times it's trotted out for ridicule.
To me, the bigger problem right now is perceived illegitimacy of the system and ease of administration.
Re "entitlement" and "disenfranchisement" I don't see it that way. We have limitations and requirements now on how to vote--timing, method, etc. This is just one extra requirement that is not going to prevent any competent person who truly wants to vote from voting, any more than requiring a driver's licence to buy liquor prevents people who want to buy liquor from purchasing it. I've never bought into the absolutely infantilizing argument that some people just can't get IDs because they're too stupid or so overworked.
Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.You sure about that?
What's So Bad About Voter ID Laws? | League of Women Voters
Voter ID laws have long been debated in the United States. While supporters argue that voter photo ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of elections, reality tells a different story. Not only do these measures disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and...www.lwv.org
Kamala Harris Pushes Back on Voter ID Laws: 'Makes It Almost Impossible'
The vice president spoke to CBS News about Republican-led measures that she said restrict access to votingpeople.com
I’ve not made that argument. I’ve argued for voter ID and against the idea that it’s going to disenfranchise any voters. Basically, I’ve said any person that couldn’t be bothered with getting a free ID making him/her eligible to vote is probably not going to vote. Also, I’ve argued that even one fraudulent vote was too much, though I also realize eliminating it 100 percent is probably impossible. Eliminating it enough to ensure it won’t alter results is doable since it’s very, very rare now and hasn’t happened on a national level since JFK and that isn’t certain.This reminds me of a discussion I believe with Aloha but one of the traditional conservatives. I suggested on government programs, conservatives would rather there be no fraud or waste even if that meant some entitled were incorrectly blocked. Liberals would put up with some waste and fraud so long as all entitled get what they are entitled to.
Many conservatives seem to be saying they are ok with legal voters being disenfranchised if it means no fraud, liberals will accept some fraud over disenfranchisement.
IU women up 45-14 in their first game. It actually isn't that close
Or DNA analysis from the COVID vaccine implanted chipI said ID. You can have a form of ID without a picture. Use one with a signature. Or, soon, maybe via thumbprint.
Co-sign. Too bad. Get a new one. Don’t have it don’t voteDid not Brad say if you lose your ID, tough luck, you can't vote?
Brad's conservative now? When did this happen?Did not Brad say if you lose your ID, tough luck, you can't vote?
Amish can go to their local courthouse and get an ID that doesn’t have their picture on it. No one has a legitimate excuse to not get an ID if they want to vote.I don’t understand why we can’t make this really simple: your vote and ID must be completed on or by Election Day. End of story. If you wanted to vote so badly, then you go get your ID. This isn’t rocket science.
Amish can get non photo IDs.I said ID. You can have a form of ID without a picture. Use one with a signature. Or, soon, maybe via thumbprint.
Kamala Harris disagrees with you. As do major left wing think tanks and organizations. So I don't understand your second sentence. Do you mean that those groups aren't being serious (I agree) or that you just don't care about it?Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.
This election cycle, the concern should be about the plans to disrupt the certification process. The groundwork has already been laid.
I guess my views on this are right wing. I don't think there should be a right or left on this, but so be it.Brad's conservative now? When did this happen?
Shhhhhh. I'm burnishing my CV for the future Dream Team application. @hookyIU1990 needs a man on the inside for his upcoming coup.Brad's conservative now? When did this happen?
Your invitation to Auburn is in the mail.I guess my views on this are right wing. I don't think there should be a right or left on this, but so be it.
Oh really? You're not worried about the civil war threatened if Trump wins?Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.
This election cycle, the concern should be about the plans to disrupt the certification process. The groundwork has already been laid.
Danc the left won’t condemn this kind of action.
Kamala Harris disagrees with you. As do major left wing think tanks and organizations. So I don't understand your second sentence. Do you mean that those groups aren't being serious (I agree) or that you just don't care about it?
On your second point, I am worried about that. I'm still sceptical that Americans will go that far.
That's preposterous. Of course there is a serious case for it.There is no serious case for Voter ID. There is no serious case against it either. At best it's a confidence enhancer, "election integrity theater." At worst it's an inconvenience. It's the political equivalent to "Great Taste!!! Less Filling!!!"
Yeah, voter fraud was rampant before 2008.That's preposterous. Of course there is a serious case for it.
But they're the Party of democracy!Danc the left won’t condemn this kind of action.
There is no serious case for Voter ID. There is no serious case against it either. At best it's a confidence enhancer, "election integrity theater." At worst it's an inconvenience. It's the political equivalent to "Great Taste!!! Less Filling!!!"
People hijacked and flew planes into buildings on exactly one day. Yet we have built up an entire security apparatus around protecting flights. School shootings are very rare, yet we have instituted great measures to secure schools. We have little to no studies on how many people underage buy alcohol or tobacco, yet we require ID to buy them. My school district requires a ton of ID, address verification, etc. to register a child for school because a handful of kids every year were registering from the west side of Chicago who didn't live in the district. Every home has a lock installed on the doors, yet what percentage of homes ever are actually broken into? Attempted to be? I could go on and on.Yeah, voter fraud was rampant before 2008.
The certification process is pretty much bulletproof. All the “disruption” is just noise.Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.
This election cycle, the concern should be about the plans to disrupt the certification process. The groundwork has already been laid.
I'm for the ID laws. But I strongly disagree that the people at the national level want to "enable cheating--period." The reason they oppose it is because of the data that shows that the more of these hoops put into place to ensure voter integrity, the fewer voters who lean Dem vote. That is a completely rational preference for them.The certification process is pretty much bulletproof. All the “disruption” is just noise.
The groundwork for election fraud is in the registration and voting process. I’ve linked twice the new Pennsylvania statutes about this. The pathway to election fraud is unmistakable. There is already a smattering of examples of this happening including one prosecution. Any idiot would know that one example is not the only one, just the only one that was discovered. I don’t care what the polls or registration numbers show, I’ll be shocked if Trump carries Pennsylvania.
The Democrat organized and unwavering opposition to voter ID and other ballot integrity measures is to enable cheating— period. All the handwringing about having all eligible people vote is, and always was, just hogwash.
Think of any company’s financial systems, or other digital systems. Everything worth hacking or stealing from has been. That is why accountants and IT people recommend safety measures. The vote is the same. The Democrats oppose all safety measures for a reason.
Especially the posters on the left on this board!But they're the Party of democracy!
What a f'n joke.
I think Trump changed the paradigm.*. The Democrats without shame claim they should do anything to stop him. The list of efforts in that regard is a long one. The Democrats know that they will have little or no accountability because those who would hold them accountable (the free press) agree with the objective.I'm for the ID laws. But I strongly disagree that the people at the national level want to "enable cheating--period." The reason they oppose it is because of the data that shows that the more of these hoops put into place to ensure voter integrity, the fewer voters who lean Dem vote. That is a completely rational preference for them.
While I do believe there are candidates in local races in big cities and maybe some rural counties that want to cheat to win, I think they are few in comparison to those who want a fair election and rules that simply ensure more of their people will actually come out to vote.