|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 26 2016 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And you will find few people here who disagree with this. The problem is that this is never the system that is sought to be implemented. Every time it happens ID laws have been struck down not because the premise is wrong. But because the implementation is obviously partisan focused.
I find the argument entirely misplaced and ought to be reframed
It shouldn't be
'we should have voter ID laws because it prevents fraud' vs 'voter ID laws lead to fraudulently inhibiting on voter's rights'
You'll never get shit done in this framework, you need to work towards my proposed system above and only when you frame it like that will you make progress. The way it is now the two partisan sides aren't even arguing about the same thing they're focused on two different problems and it appears both are arguing for a solution that ignores one of the problems
As you said, few people will disagree with that system I am advocating, because it solves both problems
|
What the fuck are people even supposed to "observe"? It's not like people are sitting there watching people vote.
|
On August 26 2016 06:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' I'd be fine with this solution. I just don't think that taking away voting rights when the crime itself has yet to actually have any impact is proportionate. Did you read and understand my lottery ticket metaphor? Do you think Trump telling his supporters to monitor voting is a response to a real fear of rigging? If so how do you reconcile that with the negligible value of any specific vote and the likelihood of rigging, if it takes place, being the miscounting or misreporting of ballots? Given that Trump's solution does nothing to address the problem he claims to be concerned about I think we're forced to doubt either his intelligence or his true motives.
I'm not interested in half-solutions and politiking and gossiping about the candidates on this issue because they're both wrong. I see an issue being debated by two sides with neither offering what I believe to be a viable solution.
I presented a viable solution. As far as I'm concerned if everyone is on the same page with the solution I proposed we have nothing left to argue about.
Both Trump and Clinton are wrong on this.
The whole issue is a mummer's farce when we have the solution right before our eyes and neither side seems to be advocating it
|
On August 26 2016 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:
What the fuck are people even supposed to "observe"? It's not like people are sitting there watching people vote.
And yet that is exactly what Trump is saying they should do. That Trumpeeteers (tm) Should stake out polling stations to watch for cheating.
That is why people are so concerned about his statements on the matter. Because its only a small step from groups 'observing' to 'intimidating'.
|
On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it'
And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting.
|
On August 26 2016 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:
What the fuck are people even supposed to "observe"? It's not like people are sitting there watching people vote. And yet that is exactly what Trump is saying they should do. That Trumpeeteers (tm) Should stake out polling stations to watch for cheating. That is why people are so concerned about his statements on the matter. Because its only a small step from groups 'observing' to 'intimidating'.
I don't even understand what someone could potentially see. If someone was standing there, eyes peeled for fraud or whatever, do they wait until they see the some guy with a ski mask running away with a box of ballots? It's like they aren't even thinking about what they are looking for.
|
On August 26 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2016 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:
What the fuck are people even supposed to "observe"? It's not like people are sitting there watching people vote. And yet that is exactly what Trump is saying they should do. That Trumpeeteers (tm) Should stake out polling stations to watch for cheating. That is why people are so concerned about his statements on the matter. Because its only a small step from groups 'observing' to 'intimidating'. I don't even understand what someone could potentially see. If someone was standing there, eyes peeled for fraud or whatever, do they wait until they see the some guy with a ski mask running away with a box of ballots? It's like they aren't even thinking about what they are looking for.
You and your 5-8 trump buddies stand there with "Trump freedom observer" shirts the legally required distance from the poll and then make sure that no one votes more than once. And you make sure to stare at everyone you think might be doing it and ask them "Haven't I seen you vote already." And if its an open carry state, you make sure you are safe from the terrorist who might bring guns to kill american voters.
|
On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting.
So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters.
Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose
|
On August 26 2016 06:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:04 Doodsmack wrote:On August 26 2016 05:57 oBlade wrote:On August 26 2016 05:41 Trainrunnef wrote:On August 26 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:On August 26 2016 04:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever teamed up with the media to deliver an entire prepared speech about insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters before. The only time she insulted and deligitimized any voters of the "other side" was when she talked about the students in the highschool basketball game taunting players on the other team because of their race. The rest of the entire speech was specifically and directly aimed at Trump. If you feel in any way that she attacked the voters it means that those voters somehow identify with those beliefs she outlined as bigoted, and not that they were mislead by a charismatic and misguided candidate. So really it's you who is insulting the "other side's" voters, even if you were one of them. EDIT: and thinking back on it, the highschool kids arent even voters. I'm not the one really calling the "right-wing" racist. + Show Spoiler +
The latest shake-up was designed to – quote – "Let Trump be Trump." To do that, he hired Stephen Bannon, the head of a right-wing website called Breitbart.com, as campaign CEO.
To give you a flavor of his work, here are a few headlines they’ve published:
"Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy."
"Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?"
"Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield"
"Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage."
That one came shortly after the Charleston massacre, when Democrats and Republicans alike were doing everything they could to heal racial divides. Breitbart tried to enflame them further.
Just imagine – Donald Trump reading that and thinking: "this is what I need more of in my campaign."
Bannon has nasty things to say about pretty much everyone.
This spring, he railed against Paul Ryan for, quote "rubbing his social-justice Catholicism in my nose every second."
No wonder he’s gone to work for Trump – the only Presidential candidate ever to get into a public feud with the Pope.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, Breitbart embraces "ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas.
Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’"
Alt-Right is short for "Alternative Right."
The Wall Street Journal describes it as a loosely organized movement, mostly online, that "rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity."
The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the "Alt-Right." A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.
This is part of a broader story -- the rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world.
Just yesterday, one of Britain’s most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi.
Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race -- that’s who Trump wants by his side
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs.
Now he’s standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.
Trump himself heaps praise on Putin and embrace pro-Russian policies.
He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and of giving the Kremlin a free hand in Eastern Europe more generally.
American presidents from Truman to Reagan have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia.
We should, too.
All of this adds up to something we’ve never seen before.
Of course there’s always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment. But it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone. Until now.
On David Duke’s radio show the other day, the mood was jubilant.
"We appear to have taken over the Republican Party," one white supremacist said.
Duke laughed. There’s still more work to do, he said.
No one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here. The names may have changed… Racists now call themselves "racialists." White supremacists now call themselves "white nationalists." The paranoid fringe now calls itself "alt-right." But the hate burns just as bright.
It'd be like Trump giving a speech about how Buzzfeed's readers are satanist fascists who hate freedom just like those commies in Sweden whose politicians by the way support Clinton. Ah yes, false equivalencies to try to make Trump's shortcomings a wash. Because Buzzfeed's leader is now Hillary's campaign CEO, and commies in Sweden are appearing on stage with her. Having a famous speaker and a campaign manager with a media resume aren't things that need defending.
I was not asking you to defend those choices by him, I was pointing out that your analogy about Buzzfeed and Swedish commies doesn't work.
|
On August 26 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting. So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters. Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose
You first have to get rid of the the faulty laws before they actually do impact elections
But bravo. You have beautifully steered the discussion away from Trumps hilariously bad statements and into the good old basic voter ID discussion.
So to remind people who tuned in late, the discussion was not about the merit or implementation of Voter ID laws but about Trump's statement that the only way he could lose the election was by rigging and that Trump supporters should observe polling stations to prevent fraud from happening.
|
The only people passing the voter ID laws are writing terrible ones. The democrats are not pushing for the universal ID because it would cost a lot of money to create and every state would have a say in how the system worked. And then there is the pesky problem of the GOP, who wouldn't' like the law because it would prevent them from attempting to pass their laws that prevent black people form voting.
Your idea is fine in principle. But it also isn't' the reality of the voter ID laws that are being passed.
|
On August 26 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting. So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters. Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose
Well, we have to get rid of the current ID laws that have been put into practice, for the aforementioned reasons, before any good, universal ones take their place. And Republicans won't allow it.
|
So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it:
About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically.
The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege.
Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks 
|
I like the Breitbart headline line of attack by Hillary though. Trump can't make the Breitbart leader his CEO and then disavow Breitbart's headlines. According to reports, Hillary's campaign is going to keep bringing this up going forward.
|
On August 26 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2016 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:
What the fuck are people even supposed to "observe"? It's not like people are sitting there watching people vote. And yet that is exactly what Trump is saying they should do. That Trumpeeteers (tm) Should stake out polling stations to watch for cheating. That is why people are so concerned about his statements on the matter. Because its only a small step from groups 'observing' to 'intimidating'. I don't even understand what someone could potentially see. If someone was standing there, eyes peeled for fraud or whatever, do they wait until they see the some guy with a ski mask running away with a box of ballots? It's like they aren't even thinking about what they are looking for.
This is the email I got when I tried:
Thank you for volunteering to be a Trump Election Observer! We are going to ensure that every person who is legally eligible to vote is not prohibited from casting a ballot. Someone from the campaign will be contacting you soon. Thank you for helping to Make America Great Again, Team TRUMP Thanks, Team TRUMP CONTRIBUTE NOW www.DonaldJTrump.com725 5th Avenue New York, NY 10022 Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
We'll have to see what else they come out with.
On August 26 2016 06:50 Doodsmack wrote:
I was not asking you to defend those choices by him, I was pointing out that your analogy about Buzzfeed and Swedish commies doesn't work.
What do you believe the goal of my making the analogy was?
|
On August 26 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting. So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters. Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose
Your solution makes sense, but it's a solution to a nonexistent problem (i.e. voter fraud). Fraudulent votes make up sth. like 0.00004% of votes cast.
|
On August 26 2016 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting. So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters. Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose You first have to get rid of the the faulty laws before they actually do impact elections But bravo. You have beautifully steered the discussion away from Trumps hilariously bad statements and into the good old basic voter ID discussion. So to remind people who tuned in late, the discussion was not about the merit or implementation of Voter ID laws but about Trump's statement that the only way he could lose the election was by rigging and that Trump supporters should observe polling stations to prevent fraud from happening.
If you've actually read my posts then you would know I'm not defending Trump's stance on this
I'm not sorry for interrupting your intellectless circlejerk bashing of Trump, feel free to go back to it. I've made my point on the actual ideological issue here and we're all in agreement
|
|
|
On August 26 2016 06:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting. So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters. Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose You first have to get rid of the the faulty laws before they actually do impact elections But bravo. You have beautifully steered the discussion away from Drumpfs hilariously bad statements and into the good old basic voter ID discussion. So to remind people who tuned in late, the discussion was not about the merit or implementation of Voter ID laws but about Drumpf's statement that the only way he could lose the election was by rigging and that Drumpf supporters should observe polling stations to prevent fraud from happening. If you've actually read my posts then you would know I'm not defending Drumpf's stance on this I'm not sorry for interrupting your intellectless circlejerk bashing of Drumpf, feel free to go back to it. I've made my point on the actual ideological issue here and we're all in agreement
You dont get to define what someone elses discussion is about lol.
The premise of the discussion was "Drumpf is claiming that if he loses the election rigging and voter fraud will be a factor."
You tried to take it to "Voter ID is bad and we should do something about it." Yes its bad. We should do something about it.
+ Show Spoiler +But there are only so many things we can do something about right now, this is somewhat lower on the list. And by that I mean like really really low.
I dont like it when peoples dogs poop and they dont scoop it up. Thats literally how much weight voter fraud in its current form has as a problem. Now if we had 30 percent heck even 10 or 5 percent of dogs pooping and no scooping, we gotta do something about it. You feel me ?
And in true Drumpf fashion you went and doubled down on it and just insulted the point of their discussion when called out on it.
Its been fascinating to read on the commute home lol.
|
I'm of the opinion that there are so few instances of voter fraud that introducing voter id laws would create far more issues and cost more money than what it is supposed to fix. Creating huge bureaucracies to tackle tiny issues isn't my idea of good government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_emails/trump_pence_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
