Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

All we have heard about is "Election Integrity" for the past year...

Recommended Posts

...yet they don't want to even OPEN DEBATE on a new federal voterID law?  They don't even want to talk about it, really?!?!:shrug:  We aren't putting it into law...just talking...but that is too dangerous to discuss election integrity yet that is all they talk about on Tucker?  Can someone explain it to me?

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Akkula said:

...yet they don't want to even OPEN DEBATE on a new federal voterID law?  They don't even want to talk about it, really?!?!:shrug:  We aren't putting it into law...just talking...but that is too dangerous to discuss election integrity yet that is all they talk about on Tucker?  Can someone explain it to me?

No one wants to be the face of that stupidity other than Trump, who wears it like a glove? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akkula said:

...yet they don't want to even OPEN DEBATE on a new federal voterID law?  They don't even want to talk about it, really?!?!:shrug:  We aren't putting it into law...just talking...but that is too dangerous to discuss election integrity yet that is all they talk about on Tucker?  Can someone explain it to me?

Apparently they don’t want a National mandate on voter ID’s either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akkula said:

...yet they don't want to even OPEN DEBATE on a new federal voterID law?  They don't even want to talk about it, really?!?!:shrug:  We aren't putting it into law...just talking...but that is too dangerous to discuss election integrity yet that is all they talk about on Tucker?  Can someone explain it to me?

Neither side really want to debate this, because unless they meet in the middle, both sound like poor ideological trenches.  If someone said, "at 18, ID's will be free, and will not be required to pick up a new one for something like a change of address.  Your employer will be required to give time off to pick up an ID, and criminal checks are absolutely prohibited by government to receive one", neither side would agree, even though it solves concerns from both sides.  And I am betting that is because both arguments have an ulterior motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you get busted for a law on the books that you didn’t know about, going with the “I didn’t know” defense will always get you a lecture from the judge that every citizen is responsible for knowing every federal, state and local law. 

If you’re going to be voting for your representatives that add and remove laws on the books, or you’re going to be voting on propositions yourself, you better at least put the effort into knowing a lot of different diverse opinions as to what the consequences will be ‘for’ and ‘against’. 

However, you can’t make voters honestly study and put some effort into understanding the issues. Therefore, I think there needs to be a little effort required just to vote. Kind of an analogy would be that a lot of animal rescue groups don’t believe in just giving away animals. If you have to pay a reasonable fee for an animal, you’re more likely to get new owners that believe animals have value. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanforHeisman said:

After losing the election, Republicans haven’t been focused on getting more people to vote for them, they’ve been focused on restricting others voting rights. Weird.

Hmm, gee - do you not see it as an issue when local city elections such say Chicago only require a lease or a debit card to register to vote?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nevada Convert said:

When you get busted for a law on the books that you didn’t know about, going with the “I didn’t know” defense will always get you a lecture from the judge that every citizen is responsible for knowing every federal, state and local law. 

If you’re going to be voting for your representatives that add and remove laws on the books, or deciding on laws yourself, you better at least put the effort into knowing a lot of different diverse opinions as to what the consequences will be.

However, you can’t make voters honestly study and put some effort into understanding the issues. Therefore, I think there needs to be a little effort required just to vote. Kind of an analogy would be that a lot of animal rescue groups don’t believe in just giving away animals. If you have to pay a reasonable fee for an animal, you’re more likely to get new owners that believe animals have value. 

And you have no fear that questions can't be slanted towards political parties that could deem people as competent to vote?  How would you determine the "diverse opinions" anyways?   And you are imposing restricting the right for legal citizens to vote in the first place, I don't think that is an ideal America should be taking into consideration.  And I really don't get this "effort required to vote" trope to begin with.  No matter what an R is going to think a D is dumb, and a D is going to think an R is dumb, based on their preference of policy, what is "effort" going to do besides being inconvenient to some and no issue to others?  

 

While I agree we have a ton of dumb voters, I don't see testing, requiring effort or any other government intervention other than proving you are a legal citizen with no restrictions on your right to vote being something that will improve the election integrity whatsoever.  It is just more redtape and ability to remove folks from their right to vote.  I will pass on the reduction of liberty, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

And you have no fear that questions can't be slanted towards political parties that could deem people as competent to vote?  How would you determine the "diverse opinions" anyways?   And you are imposing restricting the right for legal citizens to vote in the first place, I don't think that is an ideal America should be taking into consideration.  And I really don't get this "effort required to vote" trope to begin with.  No matter what an R is going to think a D is dumb, and a D is going to think an R is dumb, based on their preference of policy, what is "effort" going to do besides being inconvenient to some and no issue to others?  

 

While I agree we have a ton of dumb voters, I don't see testing, requiring effort or any other government intervention other than proving you are a legal citizen with no restrictions on your right to vote being something that will improve the election integrity whatsoever.  It is just more redtape and ability to remove folks from their right to vote.  I will pass on the reduction of liberty, personally.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I was just saying that you should research the issues on your own because the gov can’t make people put any effort into learning anything.

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

All I can say is when a large number of people don’t believe in election integrity it’s a big problem for Democracy. 

Especially when it’s not based on fact, just the hollow claims of a sore loser. Remember, he claimed his first election was rigged against him until he won. And all voter fraud happens in states he lost, the states he won were perfect and honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I was just saying that you should research the issues on your own because the gov can’t make people put any effort into learning anything.

Okay, understood.  There are certainly a lot of folks who vote based on the letter next to their name, or read very superficially on their so-called stances without deep diving.  But I very much doubt I put as much effort as say a lawlorfaithful, and I don't have specific knowledge for other important topics such as oil like Orediggerpoke.  I would hate for the government to input thresholds that they would control, so I was responding based on that.

What sucks is the election packets don't even dive in enough, and legislation has so much to dive into, has so many "subject to *insert other law subsection XX-X" that to research it is not fun for folks who know how, let alone folks busy trying to make it and provide for their families, which is why I am pretty firm in not making things harder or at the whims of government bureaucrats/local elected officials setting arbitrary standards and policies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, IanforHeisman said:

Especially when it’s not based on fact, just the hollow claims of a sore loser. Remember, he claimed his first election was rigged against him until he won. And all voter fraud happens in states he lost, the states he won were perfect and honest. 

Really, or did he just claim that the media was trying to rig the election?

That was true.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The filibuster of the motion to proceed is bullshit.  They are not even filibustering the actual voting bill.   They are filubustering even discussing voting rights!

If schumer doesn't figure out how to immediately call for a nuke of the motion to proceed filibuster he is an idiot.  We need to know where all Democrats stand...no more hiding.

Furthermore,  if sometime is engaging in supporting a filibuster they need to vote in favor of it.   No more hiding anonymously. 

Voters need to know who is standing in the way of what. 

VOTE!

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

All I can say is when a large number of people don’t believe in election integrity it’s a big problem for Democracy. 

It's almost as if the Republicans shouldn't have spent the entire year convincing their base that a legitimate election wasn't legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Akkula said:

The filibuster of the motion to proceed is bullshit.  They are not even filibustering the actual voting bill.   They are filubustering even discussing voting rights!

If schumer doesn't figure out how to immediately call for a nuke of the motion to proceed filibuster he is an idiot.  We need to know where all Democrats stand...no more hiding.

Furthermore,  if sometime is engaging in supporting a filibuster they need to vote in favor of it.   No more hiding anonymously. 

Voters need to know who is standing in the way of what. 

VOTE!

You are such a dumb shit. When the Republicans have control of Congress watch your view change like the wind. Thank god you live in Costa Rica although I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to deal with you there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

You are such a dumb shit. When the Republicans have control of Congress watch your view change like the wind. Thank god you live in Costa Rica although I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to deal with you there. 

"States Rights" has been the a high sounding bullshit reason to keep slaves and oppress voters and minorities since the founding of the country.  Same shit, different century.  The only protection has come from the federal government to take on these demonic states trying to keep slaves and preserve white supremacy.  The feds have a vested interest in federal elections as per the constitution!

The filibuster is not about "minority rights," it is about white supremacist rights.  The only minority it is designed to protect are white supremacists.  It sure as hell doesn't protect any actual minorities.  

The filibuster wouldn't have been a speed bump if they would have had the votes to kill Obamacare.  Of course I would want the Democrats to filibuster the installation of Supreme Chancellor De Santis under emergency rules/power but the filibuster won't be a speed bump at that point either.  The only salvation is if parties are accountable to the voters but if they wrest power out of voters hands and elections become a sham all you people in the USA are in a lot more trouble than I am!

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akkula said:

"States Rights" has been the a high sounding bullshit reason to keep slaves and oppress voters and minorities since the founding of the country.  Same shit, different century.  The only protection has come from the federal government to take on these demonic states trying to keep slaves and preserve white supremacy.  The feds have a vested interest in federal elections as per the constitution!

The filibuster is not about "minority rights," it is about white supremacist rights.  The only minority it is designed to protect are white supremacists.  It sure as hell doesn't protect any actual minorities.  

The filibuster wouldn't have been a speed bump if they would have had the votes to kill Obamacare.  Of course I would want the Democrats to filibuster the installation of Supreme Chancellor De Santis under emergency rules/power but the filibuster won't be a speed bump at that point either.  The only salvation is if parties are accountable to the voters but if they wrest power out of voters hands and elections become a sham all you people in the USA are in a lot more trouble than I am!

Are you on meth or drinking? This has got to be one of your dumbest posts in some time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...