YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3351
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .

Image

“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"


"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source


So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #191

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:05 amYou're assuming that the only reason for voter ID would be to suppress votes.
So the evidence shows.
First, no one can show a need for it; all investigations have turned up only very, very rare cases of illegal voting.
Second, republicans and other conservatives have repeatedly admitted the purpose is to reduce voting by groups they would rather not vote.
Third, the groups pushing for voter ID laws have refused to include provisions to have such ID provided to all voters at no cost and without difficulties.

So there we are.
I thought we already agreed that another reason was for simple verification of identity, no different than what we'd require if you were going to offer ID to get a job, buy a drink, drive a car, buy a gun, etc.
See above.
In fact, if voter ID is such a big deal, then I'd be for a program to get everyone free or reduced cost for state identification. Some states already offer such programs.
To avoid a poll tax, it would have to be available for free. And it could not involve other costs required to get the "free card." What states have that?
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:27 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmSo far, you agreed that voter ID can stop voter impersonation.
Actually, it won't, in all cases. For example, it won't stop such cases in absentee voting. Historically, conservatives and republicans opposed ID requirements for absentee voting, because republicans and conservatives have tended to use absentee.
And I'm sure if they pressed Republicans on it, instead of trying to say voter ID is not needed at all, then a lot of Repubs. would probably give in.
They did in Georgia, and republicans did not give in, for the reasons we all understand. It would completely defeat the purpose of having voter ID, as far as republicans are concerned.

We already know that voter fraud is extremely rare, so there are no real "ballot security" concerns.
I don't know that any more than a business owner with little to no security/oversight would know if people are stealing from him or her.
Since existing ballot security procedures have caught people trying to vote fraudulently, that's not a viable position.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmIn other words, there is a security function for it.
In the sense that "let's keep ourselves in office, even if most qualified voters don't want us" is a security concern. Or in the sense that wearing a sprig of wolfsbane to ward off vampires is a security function. "Don't tell me that vampires are very rare or nonexistent; we just haven't been able to catch them yet."
If you're considering REpublicans, then I can see where you're coming from.
Conservatives generally. As you see, the movement to keep minority groups from voting started with Paul Weyrich.
But if you go beyond that, and just consider voter impersonation, which has happened, then we can also say that voter ID would be a way to catch it.
How would it do better, in the documented cases of actual attempts?
As for your point about vampires, I already answered a similar point of yours. It's more like, "don't tell me vampires are non-existent, just because there's no evidence for it". Get it?
So you wear wolfbane to keep them away? You have a meteorite shield over your house?

Logic 101. You're claiming that there are no uncaught cases of fraud because there is no evidence for it.
No. I'm pointing out that exist ballot security actually catches fraud, and has. I'm pointing out that assuming something exists because there's no evidence for it, is not logical. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.
Security 101. Security should be proactive to guard against or DETER fraud/errors that can happen, instead of being reactive by only being in place AFTER something happens.
Which is why they have the existing procedures they do. Pretty much because that's how people have tried to cheat. As you know, the reason republicans are trying to change the rules, is they know that it will suppress voting by groups that tend not to vote for them. As they occasionally admit.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmSo is a 2 or 3% decrease in votes (according to some studies) worth scrapping ID requirement?
Yes. So if the motive for ID laws was actually to prevent illegal voting, it would be like burning down your house to get rid of the cockroaches.
Actually, voter ID would be a very easy way to catch voting impersonation.
Sort of the way no college kids can get into bars because ID is required? You sure about that?

On the other hand, we have all sorts of cases where a 2 or 3 percent change in voting would have changed election results.[/quote]
True. But seeing how small of a problem it is, then why not get IDs for those 2 or 3% of the population who couldn't afford IDs?
Republican in Georgia rejected that proposal, for the reasons you and I have discussed. It would defeat their whole purpose for having ID laws.
Oh, and don't forget about those studies that show NO decrease in voting, or the ones that suggest mitigating factors, like contacting voters.
First, the GAO look at how it affects minority turnout shows that it does work. As you know, republicans are aware that it works; it's why they do it. And the idea that a homeowner can put bars on his windows, is not justification for making burglary legal.
And wait, here's another simple solution, give assistance on getting an ID just as they assist with voter registration!
The republicans have thought of that, and are preparing ways to prevent it. In Arizona:

Senate Republicans are moving to approve new restrictions on the ability of county recorders to conduct voter registration drives.
...
“County recorders are most likely to go to communities that are underrepresented in terms of their voter registration numbers,” he said. That, he said, makes sense.

https://roselawgroupreporter.com/2021/0 ... on-drives/
Why aren't Democrats pushing for that?
It's how they won in Georgia. Georgia republicans are working hard to stop it. Their voter suppression efforts failed, because democrats worked hard to get out the vote. The new law outlaws many of those efforts.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm Does a 2 or 3% decrease in voter turnout amount to voter "suppression"?
One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression. Republicans tend to think of "group rights", but the Constitution focuses on individual rights.
That's true. But that's not a big problem that Democrats are painting this issue as. Democrats are selling the idea that there would be widespread suppression similar to those of the Jim Crow era where most Blacks weren't allowed to vote.
No. They're pointing out that the republicans, unable to simply ban minorities from voting, are looking for ways to shave a few percentage points off minority voting. Often, as in the 2020 election, it would have been enough. So they are trying to find ways to stop Americans from getting out the vote in spite of suppression attempts.
They're not telling you that the studies are "mixed" on the issue, and even those that show some negative effect, it's a very small one.
As you know, republicans realize that voter suppression works; they wouldn't be putting this much effort, and risking alienation of more voters because of it, unless it will pay off. The fact that they are relying on making it difficult or costly for a poor person to get an ID makes it obvious.

Logically, a "remedy" that causes more harm than it prevents is no remedy at all. And of course, we have those moments when republicans blurt out the real reason for voter ID laws.
Stay focused on my reason instead of Republicans.
When you start setting up the rules, we'll address that. In the real world, it's republicans who are doing it.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmKeep in mind, that I'm an independent.
Me too.
Good, so perhaps like me, you've noticed that both parties have become too political, partisan, and polarizing.
I have no doubt at all, that if democrats were mostly conservatives, theywould be willing to have "ballot security" rules that would suppress minority votes. In fact, that's what happened 60 years or so ago. Shouldn't matter.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmI care more about logic and evidence than I do political parties.
You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
You're again mixing why I want voting ID versus why some Republicans want it.
I'm not inferring why you support such voter republican attempts to suppress voting.
Democrats during President Obama's time in office were offering poor Americans free cellphones.
What's False
The Obama administration did not create a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-home/
You mean to tell me they can't figure out how to provide free ID to the TWO or THREE percent of the population that can't afford an ID?!
As you know, republicans are trying to find ways to prevent that from happening. And as I said, putting burglar bars on your windows does not justify legalizing burglary.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #192

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:05 am You're assuming that the only reason for voter ID would be to suppress votes.
That's what it was designed to do. Even republicans occasionally admit the fact.
In fact, if voter ID is such a big deal, then I'd be for a program to get everyone free or reduced cost for state identification. Some states already offer such programs.
If that was the case, democrats wouldn't object to it, and republicans would try to change it. Notice that when the voter suppression law failed to win in Georgia, republicans made a new law to make it even harder for citizens to vote. They were so frantic to get something that couldn't be overcome, they even made it a crime to give water to people waiting to vote.

And making it difficult for a poor working person to get said ID will disenfranchise many poor working people. So the answer is obvious; have voter ID but make sure that anyone who wants one can have one for free, without difficulty. But as I said, that would defeat the whole purpose of requiring ID; if every qualified voter had an ID, they'd all be able to vote and the republicans would gain nothing at all by doing it.
Not requiring ID is just as extreme as someone using ID to suppress votes.
And yet with existing security no one can show any evidence of widespread illegal voting. So it worked pretty well.
This is the problem with a lot of issues in politics. Dems and Repubs always have extreme and unnecessary polarizing positions. Democrats should be pushing for programs to offer state ID for free for the poor.
Those amendments were rejected by the republicans. Because, if every qualified citizen got a free ID without cost or great difficulty, it would defeat the whole purpose for which they introduced the bill. The usual trick is to require a birth certificate to get the "free" ID card. But if you don't have your birth certificate, that's $XX.00. If there's no office near your home where "free" ID cards are given, or if the offices are only open when most wage earners are working, then the law meets the objectives of the republican party. Fix those and democrats would support voter ID.
And I'm sure if they pressed Republicans on it, instead of trying to say voter ID is not needed at all, then a lot of Repubs. would probably give in.
They didn't. Relevant amendments were offered by democrats, but of course they were rejected. There's be no point in the law, if anyone could easily get an ID card.

We already know that voter fraud is extremely rare, so there are no real "ballot security" concerns.
I don't know that any more than a business owner with little to no security/oversight would know if people are stealing from him or her.
I can only point out that the existing security has caught cheaters. Again, lack of evidence for your claim, doesn't mean your claim is correct.

In the sense that "let's keep ourselves in office, even if most qualified voters don't want us" is a security concern. Or in the sense that wearing a sprig of wolfsbane to ward off vampires is a security function. "Don't tell me that vampires are very rare or nonexistent; we just haven't been able to catch them yet."

If you're considering REpublicans, then I can see where you're coming from. But if you go beyond that, and just consider voter impersonation, which has happened, then we can also say that voter ID would be a way to catch it.

As for your point about vampires, I already answered a similar point of yours. It's more like, "don't tell me vampires are non-existent, just because there's no evidence for it". Get it?

Logic 101. You're claiming that because there is no evidence of widespread fraud, it must be a problem. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

Security 101. Security should address known security problems. Focus on things are are common, like voter intimidation, not things for which there are no evidence they even take place.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmSo is a 2 or 3% decrease in votes (according to some studies) worth scrapping ID requirement?
Yes. Republicans are concerned about "group rights", but the Constitution is about individual rights.

On the other hand, we have all sorts of cases where a 2 or 3 percent change in voting would have changed election results.
True. But seeing how small of a problem it is,
If it happened in a few key states, it would have elected Donald Trump. It's a demonstrated problem. And as you know, there isn't any evidence for the problem you suppose to exist.
then why not get IDs for those 2 or 3% of the population who couldn't afford IDs?
In Georgia, for example, republicans turned down the amendments for such things. For reasons everyone understands. It voter IDs were readily available to all qualified citizens, it would defeat the purpose for which voter ID laws were written.

Oh, and don't forget about the GAO study that confirmed a 2 to 3 percent effectiveness in voter ID laws suppressing minority turnout.
And wait, here's another simple solution, give assistance on getting an ID just as they assist with voter registration!
Democrats thought of it last time. Which is why republicans wrote a new law. Lots of new restrictions on it. And the fact that there are ways to circumvent crooked laws, doesn't mean that crooked laws are O.K.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm Does a 2 or 3% decrease in voter turnout amount to voter "suppression"?
One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression.
That's true.
Yes.
But that's not a big problem that Democrats are painting this issue as.
As you know, even the 2 to 3 percent suppression you suggested, would have chanced election results in 2020. So yes, that's a big problem.

Logically, a "remedy" that causes more harm than it prevents is no remedy at all. And of course, we have those moments when republicans blurt out the real reason for voter ID laws.
Stay focused on my reason instead of Republicans. Refutting Republican reasons does not refute my points.
So you agree we should toss out any voter ID law that doesn't make sure every qualified voter can easily get a cost-free ID card? Would you show me the states were that is true now?

You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
You're again mixing why I want voting ID versus why some Republicans want it.
You seem to have endorsed the ID laws that make it difficult for poor or wage-earning voters to get them. So there is that. If you tell me that you oppose every voter ID law that does not assure that every voter can get an ID card free, without difficulty, then we're on the same page.
Democrats during President Obama's time in office were offering poor Americans free cellphones.
What's False
The Obama administration did not create a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-home/

Why have police, if you can maybe just get someone to pay for installing bars on the windows of your house? I don't think that's such a difficult question.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #193

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #193]
I'm still not convinced. So far, it seems that it's mostly the Democrat leadership and a few other hardcore Democrats who are against voter ID. Since most of the mainstream media are Democrats, their negative reporting against recent voting laws adds a Hollywood effect to make it seem as if being against voter ID laws is the popular thing. The reality is it's not.


Image
Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/fou ... oting.aspx

From the same source:
Though many of the arguments for early voting and against voter ID laws frequently cite minorities' voting access, nonwhites' views of the two policies don't differ markedly from those of whites. Seventy-seven percent of nonwhites favor both policies, while whites favor each at 81%.
Since you consider yourself an independent, I'd recommend you pay attention to the stats for Independents. And I hope you won't say that independents and even the majority of Democrats who FAVOR voter ID are doing it to suppress votes. That would be ludicrous.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #194

Post by The Barbarian »

One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:05 am That's true. But that's not a big problem that Democrats are painting this issue as.
It would, if implemented, have changed the 2020 presidential election. That's a huge problem.
Democrats are selling the idea that there would be widespread suppression similar to those of the Jim Crow era where most Blacks weren't allowed to vote. They're not telling you that the studies are "mixed" on the issue, and even those that show some negative effect, it's a very small one.
Two to three percent, according to the non-partisan GAO analysis. Which would have been sufficient to have changed the election.

You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
You're again mixing why I want voting ID versus why some Republicans want it.
I didn't speculate on your motives. I merely note that you are backing the voter suppression schemes of republicans. For whatever reason.
Democrats during President Obama's time in office were offering poor Americans free cellphones.
Nice try:
What's False
The Obama administration did not create a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-home/
You mean to tell me they can't figure out how to provide free ID to the TWO or THREE percent of the population that can't afford an ID?!
That's what the latest voter suppression scheme was written to prevent. They intend to make it a crime to even give a drink of water to anyone waiting to vote.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #195

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Down below are two of your posts, your latest post, post 194, and a previous post of yours, post 192.

Can you explain why much of the information in those 2 posts are the same? You've simply responded to points that you already responded to instead of responding to my latest post. Hmmm.

Is that just a way of dodging my last post in which I showed that the majority of the Americans disagree with your position, including Democrats?

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:36 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:05 am You're assuming that the only reason for voter ID would be to suppress votes.
That's what it was designed to do. Even republicans occasionally admit the fact.
In fact, if voter ID is such a big deal, then I'd be for a program to get everyone free or reduced cost for state identification. Some states already offer such programs.
If that was the case, democrats wouldn't object to it, and republicans would try to change it. Notice that when the voter suppression law failed to win in Georgia, republicans made a new law to make it even harder for citizens to vote. They were so frantic to get something that couldn't be overcome, they even made it a crime to give water to people waiting to vote.

And making it difficult for a poor working person to get said ID will disenfranchise many poor working people. So the answer is obvious; have voter ID but make sure that anyone who wants one can have one for free, without difficulty. But as I said, that would defeat the whole purpose of requiring ID; if every qualified voter had an ID, they'd all be able to vote and the republicans would gain nothing at all by doing it.
Not requiring ID is just as extreme as someone using ID to suppress votes.
And yet with existing security no one can show any evidence of widespread illegal voting. So it worked pretty well.
This is the problem with a lot of issues in politics. Dems and Repubs always have extreme and unnecessary polarizing positions. Democrats should be pushing for programs to offer state ID for free for the poor.
Those amendments were rejected by the republicans. Because, if every qualified citizen got a free ID without cost or great difficulty, it would defeat the whole purpose for which they introduced the bill. The usual trick is to require a birth certificate to get the "free" ID card. But if you don't have your birth certificate, that's $XX.00. If there's no office near your home where "free" ID cards are given, or if the offices are only open when most wage earners are working, then the law meets the objectives of the republican party. Fix those and democrats would support voter ID.
And I'm sure if they pressed Republicans on it, instead of trying to say voter ID is not needed at all, then a lot of Repubs. would probably give in.
They didn't. Relevant amendments were offered by democrats, but of course they were rejected. There's be no point in the law, if anyone could easily get an ID card.

We already know that voter fraud is extremely rare, so there are no real "ballot security" concerns.
I don't know that any more than a business owner with little to no security/oversight would know if people are stealing from him or her.
I can only point out that the existing security has caught cheaters. Again, lack of evidence for your claim, doesn't mean your claim is correct.

In the sense that "let's keep ourselves in office, even if most qualified voters don't want us" is a security concern. Or in the sense that wearing a sprig of wolfsbane to ward off vampires is a security function. "Don't tell me that vampires are very rare or nonexistent; we just haven't been able to catch them yet."

If you're considering REpublicans, then I can see where you're coming from. But if you go beyond that, and just consider voter impersonation, which has happened, then we can also say that voter ID would be a way to catch it.

As for your point about vampires, I already answered a similar point of yours. It's more like, "don't tell me vampires are non-existent, just because there's no evidence for it". Get it?

Logic 101. You're claiming that because there is no evidence of widespread fraud, it must be a problem. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

Security 101. Security should address known security problems. Focus on things are are common, like voter intimidation, not things for which there are no evidence they even take place.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pmSo is a 2 or 3% decrease in votes (according to some studies) worth scrapping ID requirement?
Yes. Republicans are concerned about "group rights", but the Constitution is about individual rights.

On the other hand, we have all sorts of cases where a 2 or 3 percent change in voting would have changed election results.
True. But seeing how small of a problem it is,
If it happened in a few key states, it would have elected Donald Trump. It's a demonstrated problem. And as you know, there isn't any evidence for the problem you suppose to exist.
then why not get IDs for those 2 or 3% of the population who couldn't afford IDs?
In Georgia, for example, republicans turned down the amendments for such things. For reasons everyone understands. It voter IDs were readily available to all qualified citizens, it would defeat the purpose for which voter ID laws were written.

Oh, and don't forget about the GAO study that confirmed a 2 to 3 percent effectiveness in voter ID laws suppressing minority turnout.
And wait, here's another simple solution, give assistance on getting an ID just as they assist with voter registration!
Democrats thought of it last time. Which is why republicans wrote a new law. Lots of new restrictions on it. And the fact that there are ways to circumvent crooked laws, doesn't mean that crooked laws are O.K.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm Does a 2 or 3% decrease in voter turnout amount to voter "suppression"?
One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression.
That's true.
Yes.
But that's not a big problem that Democrats are painting this issue as.
As you know, even the 2 to 3 percent suppression you suggested, would have chanced election results in 2020. So yes, that's a big problem.

Logically, a "remedy" that causes more harm than it prevents is no remedy at all. And of course, we have those moments when republicans blurt out the real reason for voter ID laws.
Stay focused on my reason instead of Republicans. Refutting Republican reasons does not refute my points.
So you agree we should toss out any voter ID law that doesn't make sure every qualified voter can easily get a cost-free ID card? Would you show me the states were that is true now?

You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
You're again mixing why I want voting ID versus why some Republicans want it.
You seem to have endorsed the ID laws that make it difficult for poor or wage-earning voters to get them. So there is that. If you tell me that you oppose every voter ID law that does not assure that every voter can get an ID card free, without difficulty, then we're on the same page.
Democrats during President Obama's time in office were offering poor Americans free cellphones.
What's False
The Obama administration did not create a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-home/

Why have police, if you can maybe just get someone to pay for installing bars on the windows of your house? I don't think that's such a difficult question.








The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:05 am One voter kept from voting by such means is voter suppression.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:05 am That's true. But that's not a big problem that Democrats are painting this issue as.
It would, if implemented, have changed the 2020 presidential election. That's a huge problem.
Democrats are selling the idea that there would be widespread suppression similar to those of the Jim Crow era where most Blacks weren't allowed to vote. They're not telling you that the studies are "mixed" on the issue, and even those that show some negative effect, it's a very small one.
Two to three percent, according to the non-partisan GAO analysis. Which would have been sufficient to have changed the election.

You seem deeply committed to a plan that was developed to preserve the power of the republican party, as some of them occasionally admit. For a true independent who believes in the principles on which this country was founded, the idea of preventing qualified voters from voting is a travesty and deeply harms America. For those who are partisan/political and ideologically-driven, it tends to be the opposite.
You're again mixing why I want voting ID versus why some Republicans want it.
I didn't speculate on your motives. I merely note that you are backing the voter suppression schemes of republicans. For whatever reason.
Democrats during President Obama's time in office were offering poor Americans free cellphones.
Nice try:
What's False
The Obama administration did not create a program to provide free cell phones and service to welfare recipients.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-home/
You mean to tell me they can't figure out how to provide free ID to the TWO or THREE percent of the population that can't afford an ID?!
That's what the latest voter suppression scheme was written to prevent. They intend to make it a crime to even give a drink of water to anyone waiting to vote.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #196

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:15 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #193]
I'm still not convinced.
Doesn't matter. It's not a popularity contest. The issue is whether or not the laws as written suppress minority voting. As you know, the GAO study shows that they do. And as you also know, republicans have acknowledged that suppression was the intent.
So far, it seems that it's mostly the Democrat leadership and a few other hardcore Democrats who are against voter ID.
Well, that's a testable assumption...
Voter suppression’ or ‘voter fraud’? A Quinnipiac poll shows Democrats and Republicans are totally split on which is the real threat.
Republicans and Democrats are almost identically split on whether they think voter fraud or voter suppression is a bigger issue in the US, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.
The poll, published on Thursday, found that 49% of the Americans questioned said voter suppression was a bigger issue, while 42% said voter fraud was a bigger issue.
When broken down by party lines, 83% of Democrats said voter suppression while only 13% said voter fraud, and 82% of Republicans said fraud and 11% said suppression.
Independents were more closely split, with 47% saying voter suppression posed a bigger threat while 44% chose voter fraud.
The poll was published amid a Republican-led push for legislation on voter restriction in several states.

https://fresh-news-now.com/2021/04/15/v ... al-threat/

Since you consider yourself an independent, I'd recommend you pay attention to the stats for Independents. Here it is again, in case you missed it:
Independents were more closely split, with 47% saying voter suppression posed a bigger threat while 44% chose voter fraud.

And I hope you won't say that your poll taken six years ago, is more accurate than one taken this year. That would be ludicrous.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #197

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #197]
Being against voter suppression and being for voter ID can coexist. Therefore, bringing up stats on people being against voter suppression does not refute my point that 80% of Americans FAVOR voter ID.

In other words, the majority do NOT favor people who just complain about it and try to do away with voter ID. As I've said before, even if voter ID suppressed votes, but the solution is not just to do away with voter ID. Why complain or act as if that is the ONLY solution (unless you're using it to divide people and score political points)?! Just focus on getting people an ID, just as they'd require one to buy drinks, to drive, to get a job, etc. This issue is an EASY fix, although I'm assuming that politicians want to fix the issue.

Trying to use ID to suppress votes is bad. That's what some accuse the Republicans of doing. However, I'd caution the Democrats that trying to take away ID requirement, which would make it easier to cheat, is also a bad idea. And to simply complain about the issue (instead of fixing it), perhaps to keep the race issue in the air as a way to mobilize minorities, is even worse. Again, it's an EASY fix, assuming politicians are really interested in fixing this issue.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #198

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:28 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #197]
Being against voter suppression and being for voter ID can coexist. Therefore, bringing up stats on people being against voter suppression does not refute my point that 80% of Americans FAVOR voter ID.
In fact, most states require some kind of voter idenfification. It's only those cases like Texas or Georgia where it's used to suppress voting that people object. The key is that more Americans see that as a problem than see voter fraud as a problem. Which is reasonable. After all, we have abundant evidence for voter suppression and no evidence whatever for widespread voter fraud.

In other words, the majority do NOT favor voter ID laws being pushed by the republican party. As I've said before, even if voter ID suppressed votes, but the solution is not just to do away with voter ID. I notice when I suggested that voter ID laws be invalidated only when it would cost money or be difficult for poor or wage-earning people to get them, you didn't agree. Why complain or act as if guaranteeing that all qualified voters were allowed to vote was unreasonable (unless you're using it to divide people and score political points)?!
Just focus on getting people an ID, just as they'd require one to buy drinks, to drive, to get a job, etc. This issue is an EASY fix, although I'm assuming that politicians want to fix the issue.
It would be simple to pass a law requiring that. In fact, such a bill is in Congress now. Do you support such a law, guaranteeing what you've just said?
Trying to use ID to suppress votes is bad.
Republicans in Arizona and Georgia disagree with you.

Arizona Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh sparked outrage Thursday after he explained that GOP-led efforts to restrict ballot access in Arizona are about trying to ensure “the quality of the votes” as opposed to expanding the quantity, as Democrats and voting rights advocates say massive Republican efforts across the country to restrict voting access amount to voter suppression efforts.

Kavanagh said in an interview with CNN the party’s efforts to put additional restrictions in place are because “everybody shouldn't be voting.”

He was specifically referring to a bill that has passed the state Senate, which proposes sending notices to residents on the permanent early voting list who have not voted in the past four elections that require a response or the voter is purged from the rolls.

Several other bills have been introduced in Arizona this year, including a proposal to eliminate voters’ ability to return absentee ballots by mail, requiring voters to instead bring those ballots back in person.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... 865127624c
That's what some accuse the Republicans of doing.
Kavanaugh is a republican. He just blurted out the real reason republicans want ID laws changed.
However, I'd caution the Democrats that trying to take away ID requirement, which would make it easier to cheat, is also a bad idea.
Pretty simple. Use existing laws which have been effective against fraud.
And to simply complain about the issue (instead of fixing it),
So you support the bill in Congress that would outlaw ID requirements designed to suppress votes?
perhaps to keep the race issue in the air as a way to mobilize minorities, is even worse.
Perhaps, if republicans didn't want people talking about it, they shouldn't be doing it. Georgia, for example, passed a suppression law a few years ago. Stacy Abrams brilliantly focused on that attempt to use their own corruption against them. Their takeaway might have been "we shouldn't have tried to cheat. Instead, they said "we just didn't cheat hard enough."
Again, it's an EASY fix, assuming politicians are really interested in fixing this issue.
Underway...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... A4EE6030DA

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #199

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:12 am In other words, the majority do NOT favor voter ID laws being pushed by the republican party.
You mean they don't support the reason or intent of some Republicans to use it to suppress votes. I favor voter ID for other reasons and so do the other 79.9% of Americans. I mean what else would they be supporting voter Id for if not just to, well, identify yourself?!
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #200

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:37 am You mean they don't support the reason or intent of some Republicans to use it to suppress votes. I favor voter ID for other reasons and so do the other 79.9% of Americans.
That was the case in 2016, when that many Americans approved it. As you just learned, a majority of Americans now consider voter suppression to be a greater concern than voter ID. For the reasons we documented here; subsequent investigations have shown fraudulent voting to be very rare, and voter ID laws have been show to be crafted to suppress voting by minorities.

And that is likely to continue as republicans try more and more extreme methods to keep minorities from voting. And it's now likely that Congress will pass a law cracking down on such practices.

Post Reply