|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 18 2026 06:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Biden was focused on appearances, on avoiding the perception that the DoJ is used as a political instrument. And of course he was still vehemently accused of doing exactly that despite getting 0 accountability done. He initially thought Trumpism is dead after Jan 6 and that his role is merely to heal the image of the US and its institutions from a freak accident. He was wrong not just in hindsight because it resulted in Trump 2, he was wrong in principle. You can't shove this under the carpet and cross your fingers it doesn't happen again, you encourage it to happen again if there are no consequences for any of it and the holes that were exploited aren't plugged. Do you have any sources for this being Biden's and/or Garland's mentality, or are you just assuming because of popular opinion? Because I recall Biden referring to Trump as an extreme danger to democracy on several occasions. Brother, the republic had just survived by the skin of its teeth. The entire interview process for attorney general should have been about how to prevent this from ever happening again. Here's one source citing "wariness about appearing partisan" as a reason for why it took so long to even look into Trump's direction: + Show Spoiler +A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation.
A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found. Here's another source about the effect of public testimonies in front of Jan 6 committe basically forcing the DoJ to stop hiding from the T-word: + Show Spoiler +The electrifying public testimony delivered last month to the House Jan. 6 panel by Ms. Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was witness to many key moments, jolted top Justice Department officials into discussing the topic of Mr. Trump more directly, at times in the presence of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.
In conversations at the department the day after Ms. Hutchinson’s appearance, some of which included Ms. Monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s potential criminal culpability and whether he intended to break the law. Bonus from the same link, slowed down by a silly memo written by Barr that they could have supplanted in 10 minutes if the leadership wasn't so focused on appearances: + Show Spoiler +If career prosecutors uncover evidence linking Mr. Trump to the crimes that they are investigating, new procedural hurdles make it more complicated for them to look into his actions. In 2016, rank-and-file F.B.I. agents did not need approval to investigate actions by Hillary Clinton and Mr. Trump. But Attorney General William P. Barr issued a memo that requires the attorney general, via the deputy attorney general, to approve such a move, which could place additional pressure on Ms. Monaco. But you don't need any of this because we know what happened. We know they went after the redneck grunts and shamans while Trump was chilling. Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:He predictably didn't get to the finish line in time Neither of the federal cases ran out the clock. The 4 indictments for trying to overturn the election were hamstrung because of SCOTUS' decision on presidential immunity. The 40 indictments for mishandling of national security documents was judged by Aileen Cannon who is a partisan hack and dismissed the charges in July 2024, before the election. The 34 indictments for fraud in NY were a state case, as were the 8 indictments in Georgia for racketeering. If anything, Garland waiting till 2023 to file charges was a smart move, since one or more of the conservative SCOTUS Justices might've died of natural causes and replaced by someone less horrible, and there'd be less chance of getting a shit federal judge like Cannon. They did run out of time, Trump himself said that if he wouldn't have won the election his life would have been screwed due to the prosecutions (paraphrasing). Jack Smith released a report saying they had enough evidence for a conviction even in the updated indictments after the SCOTUS rule for the election case. The documents one was stuck in appealing the dismissal iirc, which I would also count as running out of time, but that one is less relevant.
You laid your point out pretty clearly. I suspect you may have learned something from this exchange/the responses to this. Care to share anything you may have learned with us?
|
On April 19 2026 00:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote:looks like the Strait of Hormuz is closed again guys. Just to convert Trump's time measurements from the imperial system to the metric system everyone else uses: "for ever" = "40 hours". https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/18/world/live-news/iran-war-trump-israelShow nested quote +On April 18 2026 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Theoretically, I'm not against voter ID as long as one is *immediately* and *automatically* provided to all voters *for free*. In practice, however, we know that conservatives are maliciously pushing this to disenfranchise demographics who disproportionately (and legally) vote for Democrats, and they're trying to create extra roadblocks and hurdles to make it harder to vote. These laws would weaken the constitutional right to vote for many Americans, and there's no good-faith reason to need them. I got let in the country at the Peace Bridge with no ID in August of 2001. What a stupid move. Way too lenient. There is no way anyone should be let in the country ... or allowed to vote without ID. They have to verify they are US citizens to vote. Period. End of story.
Without ID anyone can vote. At that point, you don't have a country. I need ID to vote in Canada. I need ID to enter Canada. Try getting into Canada from the USA without ID. It won't go well and it should not go well.
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with how voting works in the United States. In the United States, we are already verified (multiple times) when we're eligible to vote, including when we register to vote, when we receive mail about voting, and when we show up to our specified location on Election Day. There are already multiple protocols in play to make sure that people who vote are legally allowed to do so and are already registered to do so, without needing to add any new protocols that don't already exist (like starting to require a specific form of voter ID).
If you're not registered to vote, then you can't just show up and vote anyway.
If you're not legally allowed to vote, then you can't just show up and vote anyway.
The elections are already safe and secure in this manner.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Identification in general is a tricky topic. It was taboo in the Netherlands for about 40 years after WW2 to even discuss the government requiring ID, due to how identification had been abused by the Nazis to find Jews
Dutch people and officials helped to turn over jews to german occupiers and even jewish organizations helped to move "poorer jews into labour camps". They tried to appease the germans "quotas" to get their own families off the deportation lists.
Ratting out a jew was worth 7.50 Gulden.
Anne Frank was one of them.
|
On April 19 2026 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 06:22 Dan HH wrote:On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Biden was focused on appearances, on avoiding the perception that the DoJ is used as a political instrument. And of course he was still vehemently accused of doing exactly that despite getting 0 accountability done. He initially thought Trumpism is dead after Jan 6 and that his role is merely to heal the image of the US and its institutions from a freak accident. He was wrong not just in hindsight because it resulted in Trump 2, he was wrong in principle. You can't shove this under the carpet and cross your fingers it doesn't happen again, you encourage it to happen again if there are no consequences for any of it and the holes that were exploited aren't plugged. Do you have any sources for this being Biden's and/or Garland's mentality, or are you just assuming because of popular opinion? Because I recall Biden referring to Trump as an extreme danger to democracy on several occasions. Brother, the republic had just survived by the skin of its teeth. The entire interview process for attorney general should have been about how to prevent this from ever happening again. Here's one source citing "wariness about appearing partisan" as a reason for why it took so long to even look into Trump's direction: + Show Spoiler +A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation.
A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found. Here's another source about the effect of public testimonies in front of Jan 6 committe basically forcing the DoJ to stop hiding from the T-word: + Show Spoiler +The electrifying public testimony delivered last month to the House Jan. 6 panel by Ms. Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was witness to many key moments, jolted top Justice Department officials into discussing the topic of Mr. Trump more directly, at times in the presence of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.
In conversations at the department the day after Ms. Hutchinson’s appearance, some of which included Ms. Monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s potential criminal culpability and whether he intended to break the law. Bonus from the same link, slowed down by a silly memo written by Barr that they could have supplanted in 10 minutes if the leadership wasn't so focused on appearances: + Show Spoiler +If career prosecutors uncover evidence linking Mr. Trump to the crimes that they are investigating, new procedural hurdles make it more complicated for them to look into his actions. In 2016, rank-and-file F.B.I. agents did not need approval to investigate actions by Hillary Clinton and Mr. Trump. But Attorney General William P. Barr issued a memo that requires the attorney general, via the deputy attorney general, to approve such a move, which could place additional pressure on Ms. Monaco. But you don't need any of this because we know what happened. We know they went after the redneck grunts and shamans while Trump was chilling. On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:He predictably didn't get to the finish line in time Neither of the federal cases ran out the clock. The 4 indictments for trying to overturn the election were hamstrung because of SCOTUS' decision on presidential immunity. The 40 indictments for mishandling of national security documents was judged by Aileen Cannon who is a partisan hack and dismissed the charges in July 2024, before the election. The 34 indictments for fraud in NY were a state case, as were the 8 indictments in Georgia for racketeering. If anything, Garland waiting till 2023 to file charges was a smart move, since one or more of the conservative SCOTUS Justices might've died of natural causes and replaced by someone less horrible, and there'd be less chance of getting a shit federal judge like Cannon. They did run out of time, Trump himself said that if he wouldn't have won the election his life would have been screwed due to the prosecutions (paraphrasing). Jack Smith released a report saying they had enough evidence for a conviction even in the updated indictments after the SCOTUS rule for the election case. The documents one was stuck in appealing the dismissal iirc, which I would also count as running out of time, but that one is less relevant. You laid your point out pretty clearly. I suspect you may have learned something from this exchange/the responses to this. Care to share anything you may have learned with us?
Can't say I have, it's a normal disagreement and not my first time seeing that defense of how Biden/Garland handled accountability.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26616 Posts
It’s a step in the right direction, least as far as I can tell.
Granted to a degree, while the potential tax revenue is nice, and can be used elsewhere, I don’t know how effective a policy it is in addressing housing needs down the socioeconomic chain.
It ain’t 5 million dollar houses, or indeed second houses in general strangling various housing markets, albeit I dunno the particulars in New York.
Least in my vague locale it’s corporate landlords, and increasingly the use of the likes of AirBnB for short-term largely unregulated rentals that are bigger issues
|
Canada11496 Posts
@Introvert
I'm not sure why you would think I was talking about current laws when the person I was responding to was accusing posters of being woke hypocrites for being against US voter ID laws when they themselves had it. The implication being that Europe has something and America does not. And Europeans don't want America to have it.
And I responded with Republicans keep trying to implement ... keep trying means I am referring to laws not on the books but failed past attempts and current attempts.
You don't contest that the SAVE Act seeks to limit mail in ballots
You don't contest that the SAVE Act does not at all match the Canadian tiered system (In tier one, a driver's license is sufficient in Canada whereas in the SAVE Act only passports and military documentation are equally sufficient. A driver's license is insufficient.) Nor does it match the German Voter ID system where it is both free and easily accessible.
You don't even make the case that there is an actual problem with the current system with IDing voters.
You instead pivot to the probability of passing the SAVE Act.
Well, great. So Republicans are wasting everyone's time by trying to push through a non-serious Voter-ID law. So where's the hypocrisy? It's a false equivocation to equate what Republicans are currently pushing vs what is actually implemented in our respective countries. So again. The problem is not Voter ID. The problem is the waste of time nonsense the Republicans choose to push, like the SAVE Act, which you also seem to think is a waste of time.
|
Northern Ireland26616 Posts
On April 19 2026 03:45 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2026 06:22 Dan HH wrote:On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Biden was focused on appearances, on avoiding the perception that the DoJ is used as a political instrument. And of course he was still vehemently accused of doing exactly that despite getting 0 accountability done. He initially thought Trumpism is dead after Jan 6 and that his role is merely to heal the image of the US and its institutions from a freak accident. He was wrong not just in hindsight because it resulted in Trump 2, he was wrong in principle. You can't shove this under the carpet and cross your fingers it doesn't happen again, you encourage it to happen again if there are no consequences for any of it and the holes that were exploited aren't plugged. Do you have any sources for this being Biden's and/or Garland's mentality, or are you just assuming because of popular opinion? Because I recall Biden referring to Trump as an extreme danger to democracy on several occasions. Brother, the republic had just survived by the skin of its teeth. The entire interview process for attorney general should have been about how to prevent this from ever happening again. Here's one source citing "wariness about appearing partisan" as a reason for why it took so long to even look into Trump's direction: + Show Spoiler +A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation.
A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found. Here's another source about the effect of public testimonies in front of Jan 6 committe basically forcing the DoJ to stop hiding from the T-word: + Show Spoiler +The electrifying public testimony delivered last month to the House Jan. 6 panel by Ms. Hutchinson, a former White House aide who was witness to many key moments, jolted top Justice Department officials into discussing the topic of Mr. Trump more directly, at times in the presence of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.
In conversations at the department the day after Ms. Hutchinson’s appearance, some of which included Ms. Monaco, officials talked about the pressure that the testimony created to scrutinize Mr. Trump’s potential criminal culpability and whether he intended to break the law. Bonus from the same link, slowed down by a silly memo written by Barr that they could have supplanted in 10 minutes if the leadership wasn't so focused on appearances: + Show Spoiler +If career prosecutors uncover evidence linking Mr. Trump to the crimes that they are investigating, new procedural hurdles make it more complicated for them to look into his actions. In 2016, rank-and-file F.B.I. agents did not need approval to investigate actions by Hillary Clinton and Mr. Trump. But Attorney General William P. Barr issued a memo that requires the attorney general, via the deputy attorney general, to approve such a move, which could place additional pressure on Ms. Monaco. But you don't need any of this because we know what happened. We know they went after the redneck grunts and shamans while Trump was chilling. On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:He predictably didn't get to the finish line in time Neither of the federal cases ran out the clock. The 4 indictments for trying to overturn the election were hamstrung because of SCOTUS' decision on presidential immunity. The 40 indictments for mishandling of national security documents was judged by Aileen Cannon who is a partisan hack and dismissed the charges in July 2024, before the election. The 34 indictments for fraud in NY were a state case, as were the 8 indictments in Georgia for racketeering. If anything, Garland waiting till 2023 to file charges was a smart move, since one or more of the conservative SCOTUS Justices might've died of natural causes and replaced by someone less horrible, and there'd be less chance of getting a shit federal judge like Cannon. They did run out of time, Trump himself said that if he wouldn't have won the election his life would have been screwed due to the prosecutions (paraphrasing). Jack Smith released a report saying they had enough evidence for a conviction even in the updated indictments after the SCOTUS rule for the election case. The documents one was stuck in appealing the dismissal iirc, which I would also count as running out of time, but that one is less relevant. You laid your point out pretty clearly. I suspect you may have learned something from this exchange/the responses to this. Care to share anything you may have learned with us? Can't say I have, it's a normal disagreement and not my first time seeing that defense of how Biden/Garland handled accountability.
For the record while not stating so at the time, I broadly agreed with your assessment pretty close to 100% I’m sure others in here do as well.
|
On April 19 2026 06:14 Falling wrote:
@Introvert
I'm not sure why you would think I was talking about current laws when the person I was responding to was accusing posters of being woke hypocrites for being against US voter ID laws when they themselves had it. The implication being that Europe has something and America does not. And Europeans don't want America to have it.
And I responded with Republicans keep trying to implement ... keep trying means I am referring to laws not on the books but failed past attempts and current attempts.
You don't contest that the SAVE Act seeks to limit mail in ballots
You don't contest that the SAVE Act does not at all match the Canadian tiered system (In tier one, a driver's license is sufficient in Canada whereas in the SAVE Act only passports and military documentation are equally sufficient. A driver's license is insufficient.) Nor does it match the German Voter ID system where it is both free and easily accessible.
You don't even make the case that there is an actual problem with the current system with IDing voters.
You instead pivot to the probability of passing the SAVE Act.
Well, great. So Republicans are wasting everyone's time by trying to push through a non-serious Voter-ID law. So where's the hypocrisy? It's a false equivocation to equate what Republicans are currently pushing vs what is actually implemented in our respective countries. So again. The problem is not Voter ID. The problem is the waste of time nonsense the Republicans choose to push, like the SAVE Act, which you also seem to think is a waste of time.
i'm cool with limiting mail-in ballots. mail-in ballots have too many issues. here is a cautionary tale against mail-in ballots. fortunately, a byelection was called.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/terrebonne-tatiana-auguste-supreme-court-result-9.7088850
just look at all the BS they had to go through to get a byelection called.
Elections Canada screwed up and refused to admit this compromised the election. All that said, this seat should be held by the Bloc Quebecois and not the Liberals.
The unofficial results on election night had the Liberals flip the seat from the Bloc by 35 votes. But Elections Canada later declared Sinclair-Desgagné had won by 44 votes after it double-checked the numbers through its validation process.
In Canada, democracy was compromised due to mail-in ballot errors. The Liberals should be holding a much weaker majority than they do right now.
Caution: joke below.
+ Show Spoiler +Hey, at least Canada didn't have to have Carney slice his ear with a razor blade while pretending he got shot to gain the political power to run a G7 nation. Trump's pro wrestling experience really came in handy. 
|
Canada11496 Posts
So once in 2026 and once in 1988, both times the irregularities were caught and both times a byelection was run as do over. And in your mind this constitutes such a problem that mail in ballots ought to be limited?
Also, the reason Trump and MAGA is pushing this is because they believe (or claim to believe) that mail in ballots are the source widespread voter fraud. (Again, 50% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen and of that 60% of New Entrant Republicans believe the election was stolen.) Your example has nothing to do with this.
|
|
|
On April 19 2026 06:14 Falling wrote:
@Introvert
I'm not sure why you would think I was talking about current laws when the person I was responding to was accusing posters of being woke hypocrites for being against US voter ID laws when they themselves had it. The implication being that Europe has something and America does not. And Europeans don't want America to have it.
And I responded with Republicans keep trying to implement ... keep trying means I am referring to laws not on the books but failed past attempts and current attempts.
You don't contest that the SAVE Act seeks to limit mail in ballots
You don't contest that the SAVE Act does not at all match the Canadian tiered system (In tier one, a driver's license is sufficient in Canada whereas in the SAVE Act only passports and military documentation are equally sufficient. A driver's license is insufficient.) Nor does it match the German Voter ID system where it is both free and easily accessible.
You don't even make the case that there is an actual problem with the current system with IDing voters.
You instead pivot to the probability of passing the SAVE Act.
Well, great. So Republicans are wasting everyone's time by trying to push through a non-serious Voter-ID law. So where's the hypocrisy? It's a false equivocation to equate what Republicans are currently pushing vs what is actually implemented in our respective countries. So again. The problem is not Voter ID. The problem is the waste of time nonsense the Republicans choose to push, like the SAVE Act, which you also seem to think is a waste of time.
Ok fair enough it was pretty late when I replied so maybe I missed the exact context. But I still find that focus odd when we look at actual voter ID as it exists. But if I want to claim voter ID is a ploy I think it would be advantageous to look at states that actually have it and figure out what exactly you are opposed to.
I don't dispute any of that because it seems pointless to do so. I didn't comment much of the abomination that was Dems "HR 1" a few years ago that would have been a massive federalizing of elections. But I am saying look at incentives. It should cause you to double check what *opponents" of something are saying. Congress spends lots of times on things that won't go anywhere, and that's their fault. I am not sure where I said anything about hypocrisy though, but maybe I am misunderstanding again.
So fair enough on the Save Act, as I am not invested in it that much. But I still maintain my main points because these are things partisan Dems who oppose photo ID always say, in different forms.
|
Canada11496 Posts
On April 19 2026 08:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Also, i should add....the claim that one needs only their Driver's License as ID to vote in Canada is a bit of an oversimplification. When you present your ID your name is checked against the "National Register of Electors"... this is a list of confirmed citizens. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=reg/fut&document=id&lang=eThey make sure you are a citizen.
Yeah.
That's why you register to vote.
I already talked about how you can check a box on your tax form to register to vote. And when you file your taxes they also know whether you are a citizen or not. Or you can register day of- without bringing your birth certificate or passport, I might add.
The government ID or two forms of verification or vouch is just to identify you are who you are and they cross you off their registered list. The ID doesn't need to verify that you are a citizen, the registered list does so we don't need to be hauling out birth certificates and passports. This is a needless clarification.
edit.
@Introvert
I am not sure where I said anything about hypocrisy though, but maybe I am misunderstanding again.
It's all good. It was baal that I was originally replying to.
On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it.IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter.
Emphasis mine.
|
On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does
If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change.
Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this)
My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state.
What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters.
|
On April 19 2026 10:08 Falling wrote:Yeah. That's why you register to vote. I already talked about how you can check a box on your tax form to register to vote. And when you file your taxes they also know whether you are a citizen or not. Or you can register day of- without bringing your birth certificate or passport, I might add. The government ID or two forms of verification or vouch is just to identify you are who you are and they cross you off their registered list. The ID doesn't need to verify that you are a citizen, the registered list does so we don't need to be hauling out birth certificates and passports. This is a needless clarification. edit. @Introvert Show nested quote +
I am not sure where I said anything about hypocrisy though, but maybe I am misunderstanding again.
It's all good. It was baal that I was originally replying to. Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 14:55 baal wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it.IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter. Emphasis mine.
The SAVE Act's requirements to register vs. requirements to vote are different. You don't have to show your passport or birth certificate every election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
