(04-21-2021 04:15 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(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 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.

I have yet to work for any company that wouldn't provide time to go vote, and I've worked for a lot of companies over the years.

Its actually law in many states but thats something else totally ignored

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(04-21-2021 04:52 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Early voting is not the problem. Absentee voting is not the problem. It's the mass mail in voting with NO over sight that's the problem.

Exactly.

Sad but interesting that republicans and democrats almost came to a compromise on this issue years ago. Democrats were willing to impose voter ID and other controls over in-person voting provided that republicans were willing to impose stricter controls on absentee voting (at that time absentee ballots, particularly from the military, tended to favor republicans). Republicans balked, and it didn't get passed.

Just one more chapter in the sad saga of I'm counting on republicans to protect me from the socialist/commie democrats, and so far they are doing a horsecrap job of it.

(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 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.

Then simply increase the number of polling places. Ask yourself why major urban areas, democratic strongholds ran by fully democrat leadership, would reduce the number of polling places? Why would they make it hard for their residents to vote when they know they will be straight ticket “D” voters? Why would they want the optics of long lines?

They know the truth - their voters don’t vote at the same rate as rural voters. So they create a “problem” in order to implement their solution, one which they can better manipulate outcomes. Just mail ballots to people who didn’t care to go vote, harvest those ballots, making sure they are filled out like you want, and call it “improved access”.

Why even pose a serious question to liberals?

They don't (can't) think for themselves.

(04-21-2021 05:22 PM)banker Wrote:  

(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 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.

Then simply increase the number of polling places. Ask yourself why major urban areas, democratic strongholds ran by fully democrat leadership, would reduce the number of polling places? Why would they make it hard for their residents to vote when they know they will be straight ticket “D” voters? Why would they want the optics of long lines?

They know the truth - their voters don’t vote at the same rate as rural voters. So they create a “problem” in order to implement their solution, one which they can better manipulate outcomes. Just mail ballots to people who didn’t care to go vote, harvest those ballots, making sure they are filled out like you want, and call it “improved access”.

XACLY!

a blind person could 'see' what they're doing...

(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.

This. And the freaking handicap hang-tags are next on my list...

(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.

Oh, I almost forgot intimidation is only for the liberal media and mob. Newsflash boy wonder after what I saw in this trial by use of threats and Democratic scum called politicians all bets are off the table.

(04-21-2021 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

Bump in case the questions can be answered

Or

Is the "Liberals aren't against voter id" a false statement

just a thought...

i see the voting rights talking points in the same light at the gun rights talking points, mirror images with opposite supporting political parties.

Virtually all conservatives support anyone and everyone who has the legal right to vote to be able to, and that it's not to much to ask someone who claims they are qualified to vote to show documentation. this equates to proof of citizenship and address.. nothing more. the "voter suppression" nonsense is simply the left working up the base.

Conversely the left while seeming to demand the constitutional right to vote with no verification of any sort is totally at odds with wanting to restrict the constitutional right to own firearms by requiring background checks, id, waiting periods, registration, etc. To be consistent wouldn't the left want to be able to walk in same day to a gun store, claim you are qualified, and walk out with a firearm? isn't that the way they claim to want it in voting?

There is an argument that owning a gun is dangerous, and therefore requires regulation while voting is not. i would argue that in the longer more broader picture that losing the integrity of the voting process is more dangerous.

if you are 18, not a convicted felon, you should be able to own a gun. period, and take it with you whenever you want and where ever you want (subject of course to private property rights etc.)

If you are 18, a citizen, and not a felon you should be able to vote.

Both should require documentation. and if you are going to require a waiting period for gun ownership to allow the state to verify everything, you should also require a waiting period from application to vote before you are allowed.

or do we now pick and choose what part of the constitution we will adhere?

(04-23-2021 09:14 AM)Oman Wrote:  just a thought...

or do we now pick and choose what part of the constitution we will adhere?

Really, you have to ask? Libs always pick and choose

The lefts idea of compromise is where they get everything they demand and their opponents get zip and then walk away happy with the arrangement.

(04-23-2021 10:28 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  The lefts idea of compromise is where they get everything they demand and their opponents get zip and then walk away happy with the arrangement.

Absolutely. I get what I want and you go along with it.

And republicans do an absolutely abysmal job of raising this issue. I really don't understand WTF they are thinking. Or if they are thinking at all.

(04-23-2021 09:14 AM)Oman Wrote:  just a thought...

i see the voting rights talking points in the same light at the gun rights talking points, mirror images with opposite supporting political parties.

Virtually all conservatives support anyone and everyone who has the legal right to vote to be able to, and that it's not to much to ask someone who claims they are qualified to vote to show documentation. this equates to proof of citizenship and address.. nothing more. the "voter suppression" nonsense is simply the left working up the base.

Conversely the left while seeming to demand the constitutional right to vote with no verification of any sort is totally at odds with wanting to restrict the constitutional right to own firearms by requiring background checks, id, waiting periods, registration, etc. To be consistent wouldn't the left want to be able to walk in same day to a gun store, claim you are qualified, and walk out with a firearm? isn't that the way they claim to want it in voting?

There is an argument that owning a gun is dangerous, and therefore requires regulation while voting is not. i would argue that in the longer more broader picture that losing the integrity of the voting process is more dangerous.

if you are 18, not a convicted felon, you should be able to own a gun. period, and take it with you whenever you want and where ever you want (subject of course to private property rights etc.)

If you are 18, a citizen, and not a felon you should be able to vote.

Both should require documentation. and if you are going to require a waiting period for gun ownership to allow the state to verify everything, you should also require a waiting period from application to vote before you are allowed.

or do we now pick and choose what part of the constitution we will adhere?

Well put.

Im fine with the following...
Voter ID
Expanded early voting
Verified Absentee balloting as we have now.

Im not fine with mass mailing of ballots...period. If you want a ballot mailed to you?..YOU must request it.
Also not fine with drop boxes. Mail your ballot in with no stamp or drop it off in person at your board of election site.

(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.

I call fabrics on the restrictions claims. Its called "exercising your right" to vote for a reason. You have to actually DO something in this process. Even with putting in the most minimal amount of effort there is no problem voting in America. We have 2 years until the next election cycle. If you can't get your voting "house" in order by then?...You have more problems in your life to worry about than voting.