Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?

Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:

- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license

Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?

Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:

- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license

Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return[/align].

Wasting your time Owl. They want total control and for you to be subservient and suffer. Besides they don't even know what you are talking about with your first two offers.

Following.

"Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license"

No
No
No
Hell No

(04-21-2021 10:33 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?
Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:
- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license
Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

Wasting your time Owl. They want total control and for you to be subservient and suffer. Besides they don't even know what you are talking about with your first two offers.

Understand where you are coming from.

I would just like to get some of them on the record saying precisely that.

Democrats response..........

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?

Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:

- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license

Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

I'll take a shot at this:

Quote:...To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return?

First things first, you should establish that voter fraud is a concern and who is doing it. There's a lot of misinformation that flies fast and loose on here, implying or outright saying that there was mass voter fraud when that is not the case. It's just not. Just because TrueFederalPatriot.biz wrote about it on his blog that promises his buddy's buddy knows a guy that saw it first hand, doesn't mean it's real.


Secondly, most liberals don't have a problem with voter ID, we have a problem with Republicans placing unnecessary restrictions on a constitutional right (see: Georgia) in order to make voting more difficult, thus suppressing voters who would not typically go to the ends of the earth to vote. People who vote should be tax paying citizens with a valid government ID. Anyone who meets this criteria should automatically be registered to vote. No poll taxes, no voter intimidation, secure voting processes, open to everyone that meets the first two criteria.


In short: Have your ID's. Secure the election process tighter than Fort Knox. No one has a problem with this. But do not place unnecessary restrictions intended to suppress someone's constitutional rights based off a problem that does not exist.

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?

Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:

- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license

Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

Owl,

Before I provide a response, I'd like to know what measures in your opinion would provide adequate election security.

Are we talking national voter ID? Would absentee ballets still be okay, or would you like to see everyone to vote in person?

(04-21-2021 11:01 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?

Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:

- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license

Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

I'll take a shot at this:

Quote:...To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return?

First things first, you should establish that voter fraud is a concern and who is doing it. There's a lot of misinformation that flies fast and loose on here, implying or outright saying that there was mass voter fraud when that is not the case. It's just not. Just because TrueFederalPatriot.biz wrote about it on his blog that promises his buddy's buddy knows a guy that saw it first hand, doesn't mean it's real.


Secondly, most liberals don't have a problem with voter ID, we have a problem with Republicans placing unnecessary restrictions on a constitutional right (see: Georgia) in order to make voting more difficult, thus suppressing voters who would not typically go to the ends of the earth to vote. People who vote should be tax paying citizens with a valid government ID. Anyone who meets this criteria should automatically be registered to vote. No poll taxes, no voter intimidation, secure voting processes, open to everyone that meets the first two criteria.


In short: Have your ID's. Secure the election process tighter than Fort Knox. No one has a problem with this. But do not place unnecessary restrictions intended to suppress someone's constitutional rights based off a problem that does not exist.

Yet the left wants to place "unnecessary restrictions" on other constitutional rights.

Making someone identify themselves as themselves to vote is a no brainer and the misinformation flying on voting laws is coming from leftists... see Bidens dumb ass

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(04-21-2021 11:01 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?

Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:

- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license

Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

I'll take a shot at this:

Quote:...To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return?

First things first, you should establish that voter fraud is a concern and who is doing it. There's a lot of misinformation that flies fast and loose on here, implying or outright saying that there was mass voter fraud when that is not the case. It's just not. Just because TrueFederalPatriot.biz wrote about it on his blog that promises his buddy's buddy knows a guy that saw it first hand, doesn't mean it's real.


Secondly, most liberals don't have a problem with voter ID, we have a problem with Republicans placing unnecessary restrictions on a constitutional right (see: Georgia) in order to make voting more difficult, thus suppressing voters who would not typically go to the ends of the earth to vote. People who vote should be tax paying citizens with a valid government ID. Anyone who meets this criteria should automatically be registered to vote. No poll taxes, no voter intimidation, secure voting processes, open to everyone that meets the first two criteria.


In short: Have your ID's. Secure the election process tighter than Fort Knox. No one has a problem with this. But do not place unnecessary restrictions intended to suppress someone's constitutional rights based off a problem that does not exist.

Secure voting processes?

Like the elimination of mailing out blank ballots to anyone and everyone willy nilly?

And the elimination of unprotected drop boxes that anyone could stuff?

To me that's common sense but to others it's racism

Hard to find a middle ground

(04-21-2021 11:01 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  First things first, you should establish that voter fraud is a concern and who is doing it.

First things first, we have no way of knowing to what extent it is a problem, because in far too many jurisdictions, we have no effective way to detect voter fraud.

Quote:Secondly, most liberals don't have a problem with voter ID, we have a problem with Republicans placing unnecessary restrictions on a constitutional right.

What unnecessary restrictions?

Quote:People who vote should be tax paying citizens with a valid government ID.

Why tax-paying? Doesn't that smack of a poll tax?

And i would say not just a valid government ID but a government ID that clearly identifies the individual and establishes the right to vote in a specific precinct. A library card is a government ID that doesn't do that, for example. I have proposed a free voter ID with photo, signature, and thumbprints electronically imbedded. Private businesses do this for about $5 a card, so the price is not exorbitant. You show up to vote, your photo and signature are matched and you do a quick thumbprint scan, if all checks then you get the appropriate ballot, and you are marked in the database as having voted to prevent multiple votes. If you mail in, you sign the transmittal envelope and there is some process for taking thumbprints. And again you are recorded as having voted to prevent double votes.

Quote:In short: Have your ID's. Secure the election process tighter than Fort Knox. No one has a problem with this. But do not place unnecessary restrictions intended to suppress someone's constitutional rights based off a problem that does not exist.

I don't have a problem with that conceptually. But I want to understand what constitutional rights you see as being suppressed or infringed. And I want to make it very clear that we cannot describe it as a problem that does not exist because we have no way of knowing the extent of the problem.

Thought experiment. Florida 2000 presidential election. What do you think are the odds that both candidates received more fraudulent votes than the final margin in the election? I'd say almost 100% certainty.

(04-21-2021 11:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Compromise is the art of I get something I want and you get something you want, so it comes across as a win-win. To get truly effective voting fraud controls, including reliable voter identification controls for all votes, what would you want in return? Or is there nothing that would satisfy you in return for making voter fraud far more difficult?
Things I would absolutely be willing to support in order to get secure elections:
- Universal health care (based upon Bismarck, but not single-payer)
- Universal subsistence-level basic income (negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund model)
- Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs
- Licensing of shooters (but not guns) similar to driver's license
Would any of those, or even a package of all of them, be enough to get adequate election security in return?

Owl,
Before I provide a response, I'd like to know what measures in your opinion would provide adequate election security.
Are we talking national voter ID? Would absentee ballets still be okay, or would you like to see everyone to vote in person?

I've answered this before, and I think above.

Voting should occur on Election Day, not election week or election month. Who has more trouble getting to polls, an urban citizen that has mass transit and most likely already lives within 3 blocks of a polling station, or a rural farmer who may have to drive 20 miles on winding roads in the snow? Early voting should not be allowed. If you know you won’t be able to vote,’apply for absentee.

Absentee ballots should be limited to active duty military, people without the physical ability to vote in person, and those that apply knowing they will be out of town. There should never,’under any circumstance, be mass ballots mailed out as there is zero control of those ballots.

(04-21-2021 10:58 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

lmao...lately, I've been listening to seether...

the cover says it all...

(04-21-2021 11:50 AM)banker Wrote:  Voting should occur on Election Day, not election week or election month. Who has more trouble getting to polls, an urban citizen that has mass transit and most likely already lives within 3 blocks of a polling station, or a rural farmer who may have to drive 20 miles on winding roads in the snow? Early voting should not be allowed. If you know you won’t be able to vote,’apply for absentee.

Absentee ballots should be limited to active duty military, people without the physical ability to vote in person, and those that apply knowing they will be out of town. There should never,’under any circumstance, be mass ballots mailed out as there is zero control of those ballots.

What is wrong with you FFS: People may not know what day voting day is so they can properly plan for it? Because the national day of voting for things like the president, congress and senate is very random and unpredictable. I need months of notice to set my schedule to make sure I can be available that day.

People who have the ability to but don't want to vote ON VOTING day don't care enough to vote in the first place.

(04-21-2021 11:01 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Secondly, most liberals don't have a problem with voter ID, we have a problem with Republicans placing unnecessary restrictions on a constitutional right (see: Georgia) in order to make voting more difficult, thus suppressing voters who would not typically go to the ends of the earth to vote. People who vote should be tax paying citizens with a valid government ID. Anyone who meets this criteria should automatically be registered to vote. No poll taxes, no voter intimidation, secure voting processes, open to everyone that meets the first two criteria.


In short: Have your ID's. Secure the election process tighter than Fort Knox. No one has a problem with this. But do not place unnecessary restrictions intended to suppress someone's constitutional rights based off a problem that does not exist.

Elaborate. What supposed restrictions exist? And how do these supposed restrictions in Georgia compare with some other states that have had these supposed restrictions in place for a long time? I'll wait in case you need to consult CNN for your talking points.

(04-21-2021 11:50 AM)banker Wrote:  Voting should occur on Election Day, not election week or election month. Who has more trouble getting to polls, an urban citizen that has mass transit and most likely already lives within 3 blocks of a polling station, or a rural farmer who may have to drive 20 miles on winding roads in the snow? Early voting should not be allowed. If you know you won’t be able to vote,’apply for absentee.

Absentee ballots should be limited to active duty military, people without the physical ability to vote in person, and those that apply knowing they will be out of town. There should never,’under any circumstance, be mass ballots mailed out as there is zero control of those ballots.

Nope. No way.

Polling sites have been drastically reduced in urban areas causing lines that stretch for blocks. There were lines in pretty much every major city that went on for hours, where as the last time I went to vote in my hometown in rural Ohio, I was in and out in 15 minutes. Furthermore, many people can't just simply take a day off of work to stand in line all day to vote.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with early voting.

(04-21-2021 12:41 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 11:50 AM)banker Wrote:  Voting should occur on Election Day, not election week or election month. Who has more trouble getting to polls, an urban citizen that has mass transit and most likely already lives within 3 blocks of a polling station, or a rural farmer who may have to drive 20 miles on winding roads in the snow? Early voting should not be allowed. If you know you won’t be able to vote,’apply for absentee.

Absentee ballots should be limited to active duty military, people without the physical ability to vote in person, and those that apply knowing they will be out of town. There should never,’under any circumstance, be mass ballots mailed out as there is zero control of those ballots.

Nope. No way.

Polling sites have been drastically reduced in urban areas causing lines that stretch for blocks. There were lines in pretty much every major cities that went on for hours, where as the last time I went to vote in my hometown in rural Ohio, I was in and out in 15 minutes. Furthermore, many people can't just simply take a day off of work to stand in line all day to vote.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with early voting.

I think banker combined a couple different thoughts into one. I am fine with early voting in person as it can combine necessary security to elections. Absentee voting by mailing ballots to anyone and everyone with no justification for why they need an absentee ballot should be disallowed.

(04-21-2021 11:50 AM)banker Wrote:  Voting should occur on Election Day, not election week or election month. Who has more trouble getting to polls, an urban citizen that has mass transit and most likely already lives within 3 blocks of a polling station, or a rural farmer who may have to drive 20 miles on winding roads in the snow? Early voting should not be allowed. If you know you won’t be able to vote,’apply for absentee.

Absentee ballots should be limited to active duty military, people without the physical ability to vote in person, and those that apply knowing they will be out of town. There should never,’under any circumstance, be mass ballots mailed out as there is zero control of those ballots.

Why do you care when someone votes or the reason as to why they might choose to want or use another method? We live in a representative republic. The majority of Americans want mail in voting and have told their representatives this. So states have passed laws accordingly to accommodate what the people want.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-th...blogHeader

We're not living in 1776 any more! We're more than capable of safely handling voting in more than just one way and on one day.

If you don't like it, move somewhere else or make your voice heard to your representatives.