Agreed, see my question on this same subject.. Its unbelievable that the moronic left would make this about race.
Someone please explain to me how requiring identification is racist?
Yeah it ought to turn out a lot different once there is no cheating and see how many people actually voted for which side
Opinion
9Opinion
Most of the northeastern states, which are pretty solidly blue, have even stricter voting laws in place than anything that has been proposed let alone passed in any states recently. The Dems' stance on this is hypocritical at best, and overtly malicious at worst. I'm inclined to think it's mostly the latter, and those idiots from Texas are being compensated handsomely by the party for that stunt (since their salary as state legislators is intentionally kept very low to keep them from being career politicians without "skin in the game.")
This is what it's all about. They want non-citizens to vote, and with no voter ID, it's pretty damn easy to do that. They just USE blacks as their pawns.
You have it correct
If you can block 1000 people from a group that votes 80% for the other side from voting, that's the same as 600 votes for your side, and the way elections are really stolen. (See, for example, the illegal voter purges in Georgia a few years ago: people were removed from the rolls for having "moved", but the post office, which they were legally required to check with, knew that they hadn't.)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uN81D69cG7g A judge ruled on this (also note the response at the end from Georgia's Secretary of State):
www.msn.com/.../ar-BB1c1hhR
I don't know what the truth is here, but I think the Secretary of State's side of it should be mentioned. Here is another article on this:
www.msn.com/.../ar-BB18EbcS
As leftist Europeans are won't to do in matters involving the US, goaded's editorializing makes assumptions to suit his ideology. I'd also note that assumptions were made as to who it
It should also be pointed out that in Germany, where goaded is apparently resident, everyone has to register their address with city hall in order to be registered to vote, and when I lived there I never saw an individual apartment number that specified on mail, or as part of an official address, just the building number. Your mailbox must be labeled with the names of the resident (s) of the apartment to have mailed delivered there.
@Avicenna Thanks for providing the ruling (which doesn't say that they weren't illegally purged, just the person who did it says he's innocent). I hadn't seen that.
Yes, the German system, designed to deal with invasion from the east, is bureaucratic, and the postal system is not as efficient as others (one address for all people in a multiple family house, and post codes covering whole villages, not just a few houses). Parts of motorways are designed to work as landing strips for aeroplanes, as well. I don't quite see your point?
If what he says is correct, it sounds like they followed established procedures for determining who to purge from the voter rolls. My point about the German system for voter registration is that it seems to correctly register apartment dwellers and get them the requisite documents, and it was apartment addresses that were suggested to be the primary problem. Perhaps the German system, which includes having to show ID when registering at an address, should be implemented in the US.
By the way, in 2019: "A federal judge says he does not have the jurisdiction to order the state to add back about 98,000 voter registrations that were moved to canceled status last week but expressed "serious concern" about the issue raised in the complaint." www.gpb.org/.../judge-upholds-georgias-no-contact-voter-purge-of-98000-inactive-registrations
'Registrations canceled after voters did not respond to communications from elections officials after about seven years of not voting". Bank accounts get closed after much shorter periods than that.
The judge also found no violation of federal law.
I've already suggested a potential solution.
@Avicenna In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not arguing against identification of voters, I'm arguing against making it harder for entitled people to vote. If you don't have your birth certificate, finding a couple of old people who've known you all your life to vouch for your citizenship should do, for example, or the state could make replacement birth certificates free of charge. The voter ID laws Republicans are pushing are not intended to make it easier for entitled people to vote, and they're blaming it on almost no cases of people voting illegally. Like, one in a million.
I'm sure the banks don't.
I think you're underestimating the danger and prevalence of illegal voting.
A birth certificate should be available for pretty much anyone born in the US. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, you only show that for the initial driver's license or state ID. Why would a very elderly person who has lived in the US all of their life or for a very long time going to be without any ID? That is a non-issue, and I think any birth certificate should be issued for free.
@Avicenna Apparently, it's not a non-issue, though. I agree that it should be free to get a copy of your birth certificate, at least if you don't have a job.
Consider this about illegal voting: about 50% of the voting age population vote in major elections, right? If tens or hundreds of thousands of people were voting as somebody other than themselves, don't you think there would be a massive uptick in people apparently voting twice? You have to vote as someone you think isn't going to vote, and that's a risk. If you're the first "Avicenna" to vote in a precinct, you might get away clean, but once the real Avicenna tries to vote, and proves their identity, there's a red flag against the election. If you're the second "Avicenna", then you're looking at prison time. All for a tiny fraction of a chance of changing the result.
I read the other day something like: "All these people who claim massive conspiracies should be sentenced to organising an event involving a thousand people."
A massive uptick would be much more likely to result in a detection and an uproar. All campaigns have internal polling data as well as personnel in the field, so a campaign planning to cheat could reasonably estimate just how much they need. And they'd know who hasn't voted in years, which is the best place to generate fraudulent votes, especially by mail or unguarded boxes randomly placed in certain voting precincts. I'm sure there are other ways, especially if you have people on the ground who know their neighbors.
@Avicenna Exactly! Taking that approach to stealing an election will raise red flags. What you suggest could conceivably happen, but a genuine investigation into that would be as simple as going to a few hundred people who voted for the first time in years, and asking them if they really voted this time. Not looking for bamboo fibres in the ballot papers. That's just insane.
An audit would need to be conducted to answer where the money went, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Election laws ban a lot more than handing money out to voters, which has indeed been known to happen in Then there are ethical concerns as well. Furthermore, we all know that wealthy leftists don't donate hundreds of millions of dollars without expecting their wishes for that money to go unaddressed.
I continue to find it odd that a foreign leftist is so interested in the conduct of elections in a foreign country and so supportive of the other country's less-than-secure processes. And this while concurrently opposing efforts to make the foreign country's elections more secure while never indicating dissatisfaction about the more secure processes in the country of his residence.
@Avicenna "we all know that wealthy leftists don't donate hundreds of millions of dollars without expecting their wishes for that money to go unaddressed."
And if their wishes for that money were to enable every eligible voter a chance to vote and not get sick or spread the virus further? What's wrong with that, exactly?
I'm concerned by your country's elections because of all the obvious parallels with early 20th century Italy and Germany. That didn't turn out so well for anyone.
Given Zuckerberg's political leanings and his platform's censoring of the other side's speech (apparently now in conjunction with the Biden Administration), one would have to be the most naive person in the world to believe such gaslighting.
If you're concerned about totalitarianism, then you should be worried about the actions of the Obama and Biden Administrations and unelected leftist bureaucrats in the federal government. And I'm well familiar with what happened from 1933 until 1945- a number of my family members were persecuted, imprisoned and/or killed by the Nazis. If you were truly worried about that, you wouldn't support the Democrats' chicanery, censorship and political persecution.
Oh, I lived in Munich for 13 years. Your allegory is false.
The Nazis first went after their political opponents- sound familiar? It should, because it's what the saintly Obama and Biden Administrations have done, albeit with nowhere near the ferocity Hitler did. And the anti-white racism sounds familiar. I won't go further because you're already aware of the history.
@Avicenna And when Hitler said "You can see that what motivates us is neither self-conceit nor self-interest, but only a burning desire to join the battle in this grave eleventh hour for our German Fatherland... One last thing I can tell you. Either the German revolution begins tonight or we will all be dead by dawn!", do you think he was telling the truth?
Doesn't "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," sound remarkably similar?
I'm sure anyone who wants to find parallels and allegories for ideological reasons can, as weak and illogical as they may be. But a honest person would look at the actions of the Obama and Biden Administrations and find them much more concerning than some speech. Furthermore, there's the four years Trump was President to evaluate in comparison. I think even you would have to admit it was nothing like 1933-37 in Germany.
@Avicenna No, Trump didn't sieze power, he won it, to his surprise as much as anyone else's. He tried to hold onto it using violence and the lies and propaganda that still seem to be working on you, though.
Fortunately, the US system held up this time, like 1923's Weimar Germany, but it's still in a fight for its life.
You're definitely barking up the wrong tree if that's what you're definitely concerned about.
The threat the US faces is from corrupt elites, politicians and bureaucrats. But I understand that European leftists have a different perspective, i. e., different things they want from the US than most ordinary Americans do.
@Avicenna What do you think most "ordinary Americans" want, and why?
I'll give you some hints:
"84 percent of voters, including over three-quarters of Republicans and 82 percent of Independents, support a law requiring a background check for all firearm purchases."
www.bradyunited.org/.../new-polling-overwhelming-support-for-universal-background-checks
"65 percent of Americans are on board with a 15-year corporate tax hike to fund infrastructure, while only 21 percent oppose increasing corporate tax rates"
www.msn.com/.../ar-BB1fojOF
"67% of Americans say they support H. R.1 For the People Act, even after being provided opposition messaging. This support continued across party lines: a majority of Republican (56%), Independent (68%), and Democratic voters (77%) also support H. R.1. "
www.dataforprogress.org/.../majority-support-hr1-democracy-reforms
HR.1 makes it more transparent, whose money funds politicians, among other things. Everybody wants that; it would reduce the number of "corrupt elites, politicians and bureaucrats".
www.congress.gov/.../1
They use the excuse “now people that work all day can’t vote” ….. so basically you want to whine about the government changing rules so there’s no further concern of cheating but you won’t complain to your job that they aren’t giving you basic human rights such as voting? There’s two sides to this, people that complain for change and people that whine just to whine. If you continue to work for a job that doesn’t give you basic human rights such as voting, you are a sucker.
Again if your job can’t provide luxury when you can still make money that day and also have a chance to vote, you need to complain to the company or quit. Voting is a basic human right. Again the difference between complaining to complain or complaining for a change.
Voting doesn’t take a whole lot of time out of your day.
If you think being brainwashed by a company is more important than your rights, you are the problem
^^^^^ this !!! Unless you are working illegally
My point is, is you have more of an ability to change your boss’s mind than you do the government, so if your job is not giving you valid time to vote, that is YOUR fault for not speaking up. Yes you speak up, you have a better chance of getting what you would like. That is 100% true with most companies. And yes if you are getting brainwashed by a job insinuating that you don’t deserve to have time to vote , you are contradicting what you are fighting for.
Whining about something you definitely can’t change after people abused that power, well is nothing more than whining.
I don't think you quite understand what life is like for people on minimum wage. Their boss would like to pay you less, and they can replace you with another desparate person (or an illegal immigrant) in a day, if you make a fuss. That's why it's a good idea for the government to target the people who hire illegal immigrants, not the poor people being exploited.
I don’t know what’s it’s like to be a minimum wage worker? LMAO!!! I was a minimum wage worker for a long time. I’ll never settle again and that is not a valid excuse. If they want to replace you because you want to exercise your rights (vote) then you shouldn’t stoop to wanting to work for them. They’re plenty of minimum wage workers that legally work in the United States. You made ZERO points against what I said , matter of fact you validated exactly what I said.
And next time, don’t you dear assume my life. I have worked my ass off to where I am now, starting off working for minimum wage.
Dare**
The last time I checked, which has been quite a while, but I would imagine that it's still valid, the law requires an employer to allow an employee sufficient time to be able to vote.
That doesn't mean they have to give an employee time off.
It basically means that an employer cannot require an employee to be required to work the entire time that the polls are open, thus denying them the opportunity to vote.
A typical 8-1/2 to 9 hour work shift allows ample time for anyone to vote.
Anyone that is, except whiny ass complainers who'll tack on any personal issues to the time that "they can't get to the polls". Personal issues are not the responsibility of employers or the government.
Personal issues are personal issues. Period. If someone can't get to the polls due to personal issues, that is their problem.
@goaded
Have you ever voted?
If you get to the polls early, when they open, chances are extremely good that you will either encounter a short line or none at all.
I don't have the exact wording of the law at hand, but if you are in line to vote at the time of the polls closing, you get to vote, regardless of how long the line is. The election workers block any one from entering the line after the polls close.
There are no excuses for not being able to get a vote in.
@nolabels Of course I have, but not in an area where you have to wait 11 hours to vote.
My points are that 1. those areas exist, and they shouldn't, and 2. if you're in one of these (coincidentally left-leaning) areas, that totally eliminates the chance of voting before work, and makes you choose between voting and getting a night's sleep before you start work the following day.
@goaded
Excuses and whining.
All I can say is that if you truly can't get get your vote in before your work shift begins,, and you don't want to wait in a long line after your work shift, that's your prerogative. I can do nothing more for you. And neither can a fair system do anything more for you.
You've exhausted your excuses.
Your civic duty is not always easy.
If you have no say in an election, you have no say afterwards.
@nolabels "I can do nothing more for you."
Obviously, it doesn't affect me, but you could do more. You could push for regulations that ensure that there are sufficient resources statewide so that nobody has to wait an unreasonable time to vote.
"One drop box per county" sounds fair, until you realise that it applies equally to counties of a couple of hundred people and counties with millions.
Texas counties vary between 169 people (Loving County) and 4,713,325 (Harris County). Georgia is similar: 1,717 (Taliaferro) to 1,010,562 (Fulton). Any legislation that allocates resources by county is obviously deliberately unfair.
en.wikipedia.org/.../County_statistics_of_the_United_States
Yes the democrats need illegal voting with ballot harvesting and illegal immigrants voting. Or they'll never win because really no one outside of some useful idiots and students believe in their ideas.
It's going to be very obvious when the Audit results come in in the next few months proving trump one by a lot by a lot and they cheated. They will double down and probably make the cold/warm Civil War go hot hope you guys are ready for it
Funny how skewed the truth has become and how polarizing everything has become.
It used to be that people could discuss politics and disagree, but still have an adult conversation and honest discussion about beliefs and ideals without the inflammatory language and extremes, not to mention all the baiting, like this post.
I would encourage everyone to read "The Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments" and start recognizing the logical facilities that are so prevalent and so many conversation today. Let's try to pull us together. Not push us apart.
I suppose social media is a part of that. We get "rewarded" with little "badges" if we get a lot of replies. Shock jocks learned a long time ago that the way to get a lot of followers is to just antagonize people. Doesn't matter if it's true.
It just happens to be fact
As defined by who? Show me proof. Are you still believing that Dems stole the election even though there was repeated recounts and nothing was found? The only "proof" is that Trump said so. Did you notice that his web sites that went up begging for money to fight against the election that was "stolen" from him were created before the election even happened? He's a con artist and a fraud. Start looking into his claims and you'll see.
I know they did
lol, well, as long as you know.
You can believe in UFO's
I don't know If you keep inviting me or GAG but I don't fucking care about your shitty takes so please stop inviting me and or GAG please to fucking inviting me.
you dont have to , It is a function on here. You can write gag and ask they do away with it
Yeah, there is no reason for them to oppose these laws unless they want to maintain the option of cheating.
I'm sure someone will find a way to cheat the system if they want to. But it does sound like a step forward.
Nobody seems to be tackling big tech gently skewing the nation though.
Stop inviting me to these questions please :)
I will block you so you don't get more , you don't have anything worth adding anyway.
True that
Democrats cheated?
every day
It seems they would've been caught tho
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions