I guess that’s only when Dems might be involved? Or maybe I missed it?
Wow! You are looking at Fox News! Better watch out, you mind will be polluted. And I thought that they were always for the Republicans. Who knew?
Seriously, both sides cheat, but the recent history has shown that the Democrats guilty far more often. There was a governor’s race in Oregon, the senate race in Minnesota that elected Al Frankin and the presidential race in 2000. And there are the states and the localities who let illegal aliens vote. Yes I know, in your world, they are “citizens of the world” who deserve to vote.
I have never understood why your side is so opposed to voter ID laws. You need an ID to do just about anything these days, including receiving government services. So what is so wrong about having to show who you are when you vote? If the IDs are too hard to get, then the process needs to be streamlined so that all Americans can easily get them. IDs are necessary to combat fraud in the distribution of government services, including Medicare, Medicare, Social Security benefits and food stamps to name a few. Yet Democrats oppose the use of IDs for voting.
If you can’t explain why showing a voter ID is taboo in your world, then debating you is a waste of time. Dead people voting and people voting multiple times has been the practice for Democrat machine politics for a long time. Add to that illegal alien voters, the new Democrat constituency.
It’s not “my side”. That’s part of your problem, you view politics as a sport. You don’t care about the issues, you just want your team to win.
In Florida, where there was accusations of misdeeds in (Broward?) county. If a poll worker did something wrong, then they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don’t care if it benefits a Dem. If it means the Republican wins as a result of an investigation, then so be it.
I’m not opposed to voter ID laws (I live in VA a state with ID laws), what I’m opposed to is waiting till weeks before an election and changing the rules (Indians in ND). Moving voting places to make it harder for people to vote (Dodge City). Having two polling stations to serve 12.5k people in a state where the average polling station serves 1.2k people (again Dodge city). Closing DMV offices to make it harder for people to obtain ID’s needed to vote (Alabama). Voting on workdays (the entire nation) and I think most Dems would agree with me. ID laws are weaponized against people with lesser means.
There are some on this forum that believes that voting is a privilege. It is not. It is a right.
Do I have a problem with voter ID laws? No, just as long as anyone that wants one can get it assuming they are who they say they are. If you go to the poll and you are told you need an ID, there should be a place where you can obtain an ID that day, preferably onsite, or you should be able to cast a provisional ballot and have a few days to get your ID and go back. If the number of provisional ballots exceeds the margin of victory for either candidate, the results are delayed until the time to certify your ID runs out.
You want voting on Tuesday? Make it a national holiday. The only reason not to do these things is that one side feels that it has an advantage by not implementing these rules.
I hope we can agree that free and fair election only has weight if people have faith in them. Republicans (and Dems) have in the past made it
I’ve heard these claims for a long time, and yes, there are tiny numbers of anecdotal examples where this happens and should absolutely stop, but there is NO evidence whatsoever, that millions of votes are cast this way. That’s just an assertion made to rile people like you up, and obviously it works.
I think there are clever solutions that can be put in place to solidify our elections. It will, of course, come at an expense, but then again, what is a fair election worth to you?
I just find it interesting how much people like you claim to care about the legitimacy of elections, but only really care if you think it hurts “your side”.
Oh, and I read and watch Fox all the time. I know it surprises you that not everyone is a partisan like you are.
I care about the issues very deeply. I am capitalist and strongly believe in ecomonic freedom. I want less regulation and lower taxes. I don’t want the government to control every aspect of people’s lives, except to abortion, which is the only right that your side is willing to give to anyone without restrictions.
I care about the national debt, but get shouted down for it. My solutions are the only solutions - grow the economy and restrict government spending. Raising taxes only gives BOTH SIDES in Congress reason to spend more. The Democrats don’t even view taxes as primarily a revenue source any more. For them it’s all about “fairness.”
And if you read my bio here, you will see that I am pro-choice which is a very unpopular position to have here. I have my reasons, and they date from my more or less libertarian views about government control, and issues that my mother had in her youth. And no she did not want or have and abortion. It had to do with her mother.
I believe in controlled immigration, not the mess we have now where we don’t vet anybody. We need to control the flow of illegal drugs and human trafficking. We need to deport criminal illegal aliens and keep them out. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, I don’t think that MS-13 members are “God’s children.” They are vermon that needs to be kept out fo this country and proseculated for all the offenses they commit.
Don’t give me a bunch of BS about how I don’t care about the issues. That is garbage, and if that’s the best you can do to discredit me, then you not nearly the great intellectual that you claim to be.
You remind me of my father. He was a blank check Democrat. He voted for anybody they nominated. It didn’t matter about what they said or if they had been guilty of malfeasance.
If you talked to him about the issues, you heard a lot of conservative positions. He was angry at welfare recipients. He thought that labor unions had too much power. He opposed the Vietnam War, but supported Hubert Humphrey for president. If you pointed out that the people he supported didn’t agree with any of those ideas, it didn’t matter. For him it was all the party.
You say you are against seizures of private property, and yet a larger and larger number of people in your party are socialists who see government ownership as the ultimate goal. You say you support voter ID laws if they are enforced fairly, yet one would be hard pressed to find any Democrat in leadership or in an elected position who will support them.
You say you would support the prosecution of Brenda Snipes in Florida for election fraud. She’s been doing this for over a decade. She has tampered not only with general election results but also with Democratic primaries to keep establishment Democratis in power against any party insurgents.
There is a huge disconnect between what you write and what the leadership of your party supports.
I was once a registered Democrat. I worded for a Democratic candidate for Congress when I was in college in 1970. I voted and worked for George McGovvern in 1972. I voted and pushed for Carter in 1976.
By the end of the decade, I started to see that the Democratic Party was leaving me behind. I was the “evil white male” who oppressed African-Americans and women. I was the “evil sell-out” who worked for big corporations. There was less and less room for me in the Democratic Party. So on the way to polls in 1980, I decided to vote for Reagan, and I’ve never looked back. There is nothing in the Democratic Party for me, and it’s getting worse as it slides more and more to the left.
Capitalism yes, unrestrained capitalism, no so much.
Can you define “economic freedom” for me, because I suspect we have different ideas on what that means.
I want fewer unnecessary regulation and I want taxes, higher or lower to depend on prevailing economic conditions. However, having said that, generally speaking, I support lower Federal taxes.
That’s because you don’t understand that the “national debt” is little more than dollars that people want to save and move to an interest-bearing account similar to purchasing a CD at your bank. A CD is a savings account. Treasuries are a savings account. In that sense the national debt is the national savings.
Taxes aren’t used to repay 1¢ of federal debt
As you can see here, the US government has repaid $17 trillion in bonds just this year (redemptions). Taxes collect, what? $3 trillion?
You cannot eliminate spending and grow an economy without increasing private debt. Private debt is much worse.
I know this is going to hurt, but taxes and spending aren’t related as I’ve already shown, the government repays trillions in debt every month and doesn’t use a single tax dollar.
The only reason to spend more is that there are things that need to be done, real resources and labor that wants to do it.
You’re thinking for yourself? Congratulations.
Personally, I don’t see the issue in black and white terms.
I think early term abortions are fine. If someone doesn’t want a child, I see no reason to make them have it. Does it bother me, the thought that I might not be here if my mother had the choice to abort me? No, not at all, because I wouldn’t have ever lived to regret it.
However, I’m uncomfortable with later term abortions in most cases as I think it harms the mother (and obviously the unborn).
Now, you’re welcome to comment, but I won’t get into an abortion debate here. It would be exhausting.
I have mixed feeling about immigration. I do understand the need to have a process and I don’t like the idea of people caught and released into society, however, I do think there are potential solutions that don’t involve building walls or opening borders. The problem suffers from the extremes on both sides screaming so loud, there is no moderation possible.
Sure, but despite what you may have heard, MS-13 started in the US.
Oh, and Nancy Pelosi does norepresentnt me on all topics. We may share some common ideas, but throwing her name out as if it stains me is just dumb.
I’m glad to hear it.
I never claimed to be “an intellectual”, though it’s funny how that word is used as a pejorative by some as if being smart is a bad thing.
Ironic, explains a lot and hypocritical all in one statement.
I think you might agree, if you’re being honest, people in government, especially at the federal level, rarely if ever are models of virtue and ethics and morality. We often find ourselves opposing someone much more strongly than we support someone.
Absolutely, but then again, I’m not a “socialist”, though that word seems to have a lot of definitions, so when I say that, I’m using the standard dictionary definition.
Has that been adjudicated?
I’m for an investigation and if the evidence supports her conviction, I support it 100%.
Ha! And when I was in 4th grade in 1980 we had a school election and I voted for Reagan!
Actually, I voted Republican right up till Bush Jr (one time). Then I learned what a dismal failure supply-side theory is and began looking at those that empower those that create demand.
Nonsense, CSB. Do you REALLY “believe” that there weren’t millions of illegal aliens voting in States like Kalifornia, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona??? In EACH of those States, all that’s necessary to “prove” your identity is a driver’s license and EACH of those States issue DL’s to illegals with NOTHING on the DL itself to indicate that the bearer is illegally in the U.S. In Kalifornia alone, they don’t even require that you show the DMV proof of residency or proof of your date of birth in order to obtain a DL and they automatically give you a voter registration form when you apply for a DL.
You’re both right, and there are a lot of solutions that both Republican and Democratic voters would support. But officials in neither party will enact them, specifically because the sideshow benefits them.
In-person voter fraud is also far less likely than machines deliberately programmed to give fictional or curved results. And 1 corrupt poll worker can do more than literally thousands of individual voters - hence why I’ve said for a long, long time that people voting multiple times shouldn’t be the top of Republican priorities. I think maybe, this most recent Broward incident has finally allowed it to dawn on them. But I still expect them to primarily go for fevered dreams of “busing in out of state blacks” - something that is logistically difficult and insanely expensive. Compared to bribing 2-3 election officials.
The idea seems to be, find 20,000 people from out of state, 3,000 people to bus them around, and pay each one, let’s say $100. So we’ve spent 2 million just for that day’s wages(plus easily 2x that in order to recruit them in the first place). So 6 million dollars, and 25,000 accomplices any of whom may rat us out and cause a lot of problems. All for maybe 80,000 votes. Or, we just hand 1 million to each of 3 election officials, and have them create 80,000. And done.
Nope, obviously better to bus. Must be busing for sure.
Screw paper ballots or monitors on election officials. We must have polling audits for out of state bus voters impersonating dead people!
Would you be interested in debating it in another thread if I started one?
Possibly on the basis of association of “intellectual” with “academics.” There are a lot of rotten eggs with academic credentials.
In '80, I was in high school, and I voted for Carter; and Carter won our school election. Mercifully, it wasn’t a reflection of reality…
Absolutely. I think the other problem is that media often when citing poll stats use “people with a college degree” as a way to denote “smart people”. I’ve met some very smart people who didn’t go to college and I’ve met some real idiots that have, I’m sure you’d agree.
I think there are lots of rural people who are smart in their own right but did not attend college who resent the idea that to be smart one must go to college and the idea that this is how media and academics determine intelligence within society. I think it’s created at least some of the societal resentment we see towards education and academics.
Ever wonder why most oriental countries consider a baby to be 1 year old at birth??? China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan all do. Do you suppose that their scientists are smarter than ours?
Ain’t that the truth!
True, CSB & Susanna! A pretty good case can be made that sending your kids to one of today’s universities is a formula for REDUCING their IQ by multiple points!
Can you cite a single example of any Conservative in the United States who has ever intimated that they are OK with election fraud as long as it “benefits their side”?
Of course not, yet you play the card anyway.
It is the Left who steadfastly oppose actions that would provide checks on our electoral process to make fraud more difficult to do and make discovering fraud easier, the reason is self evident.
Quite true, RET. EVERY effort to insure fair elections has been opposed…NOT by the right, but ALWAYS by the left. What are they afraid of? The answer, of course, is LOSING if they cannot encourage and commit voter fraud.
Didn’t see a lot of conversation here about it. Or did I miss that thread?
So changing election rules a month before an election is “fair” in your mind (ND and requiring Indians on reservations to have street addresses)?
How about having one place to vote in a city of 13,000 registered voters in a state where the average voting station serves 1,300 people? Then to make matters worse, the one voting station was moved 1 mile outside town citing construction on the civic center where the voting place is located, yet when investigative media arrived, nothing. No construction at all. Do you think that the 60% Hispanic population in Dodge has anything to do with it?
So spare me the idea that only the right is principled with respect to elections, it’s insulting.
The problem in a lot of schools is that teachers and students forget that being taught how to critically evaluate information is at least as important (and I’d argue more) as the information itself.
While I don’t think people get dumber in most schools as you’ve put it, but I would agree that they become less able to judge information impartially.
I have seen threads and comments for years on this site and never once have I seen any Conservative indicate that election fraud was fine if it benefits their side; what I have consistently seen is the Left oppose any and all reforms that would make election fraud more difficult to get away with.
You are the one who said that we are “fine” with fraud that benefits us so I assume that you have SOME evidence of SOME KIND from SOMEWHERE that you based that opinion on?
Surely you would not just spew something like that off the top of your head?
I lived in a town of 25,000 in the early 70’s and there was ONE place to vote and voting went off without a hitch every election and we had a 10% black population at the time and their turn-out was usually higher than the rest of the population. And, that was at a time when Republicans only RARELY even ran for elective positions in Texas. I sat on the election commission and participated in the COUNTING of ballots. I was as conservative then as I am today.