House passes bill to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, West said:

1. It's not denied the vote. Everyone is able to order a new birth certificate and typically takes 3-4 weeks

2. Non citizens shouldn't be voting

1. Ok... some will drop the ball and be UNABLE to vote on voting day.  Trump will definitely lose some votes.  It will come down to the party organization to ensure their supporters are up to date I would say.
2. You're not getting my point.  How many legal voters would you deny the vote to stop an illegal voter ?  The answer should be that the ratio is less than 1:1.  Much less.

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok... some will drop the ball and be UNABLE to vote on voting day.  Trump will definitely lose some votes.  It will come down to the party organization to ensure their supporters are up to date I would say.
2. You're not getting my point.  How many legal voters would you deny the vote to stop an illegal voter ?  The answer should be that the ratio is less than 1:1.  Much less.

Question: Why does it bother you that only those who can prove citizenship, be allowed to vote?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That's a step in the right direction, but they really need to get busy with the border. 

 

Well there's a lot o

 

..

.;hers4444444444444444444444444444444444

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Question: Why does it bother you that only those who can prove citizenship, be allowed to vote?

Question: Where did I say that it bothers me ?

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Question: Why does it bother you that only those who can prove citizenship, be allowed to vote?

Maybe you are asking why I stated a ratio above.

Well, if you take away a legal vote to take away an illegal vote, it really seems to me that you have done as much damage to democracy as you were trying to prevent.  It's like buying a $1000 bike lock for a $100 bike, sort of.

But it doesn't "bother" me.  The USA can do whatever wild ideas it wants... and is about to.  We will have to adjust.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe you are asking why I stated a ratio above.

Well, if you take away a legal vote to take away an illegal vote, it really seems to me that you have done as much damage to democracy as you were trying to prevent.  It's like buying a $1000 bike lock for a $100 bike, sort of.

But it doesn't "bother" me.  The USA can do whatever wild ideas it wants... and is about to.  We will have to adjust.

There are at least 10 million "refugees" in the USA right now. Giving them the ability to vote in any US or Canadian election is...NOT ON!!! These people are illegals...at best "guests" of the citizenry. If they want to vote for the citizens' government...become a citizen.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

There are at least 10 million "refugees" in the USA right now. Giving them the ability to vote in any US or Canadian election is...NOT ON!!! These people are illegals...at best "guests" of the citizenry. If they want to vote for the citizens' government...become a citizen.

You need to move past the slogans if you want to understand my point.  You haven't talked about the ratio I submitted.  What's the number you support ?

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You need to move past the slogans if you want to understand my point.  You haven't talked about the ratio I submitted.  What's the number you support ?

That's because I don't give a flying fck about your ratio. Non-citizens may not vote.!

Edited July 11, 2024 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, West said:

1. It's not denied the vote. Everyone is able to order a new birth certificate and typically takes 3-4 weeks

2. Non citizens shouldn't be voting

His entire premise is daft.  It's never been a problem in canada, it won't be a problem in the states, and it's up to the parties to make sure that their voters know about the new rules and it's up to the gov't to make sure a well.  But it leaves a nice record to help prove to people that there was no cheating in the election, which is something sorely lacking right now. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok... some will drop the ball and be UNABLE to vote on voting day.

This can happen to anyone for any number of reasons, regardless of needing proof of citizenship. 

So... what is your point? 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, User said:

This can happen to anyone for any number of reasons, regardless of needing proof of citizenship. 

So... what is your point? 

Probably doesn't have one.  So you'll be on 'ignore' for that post so he doesn't have to come up with an answer  

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe you are asking why I stated a ratio above.

Well, if you take away a legal vote to take away an illegal vote, it really seems to me that you have done as much damage to democracy as you were trying to prevent.  It's like buying a $1000 bike lock for a $100 bike, sort of.

But it doesn't "bother" me.  The USA can do whatever wild ideas it wants... and is about to.  We will have to adjust.

That's kind of stupid, Mike, don't you think? Wouldn't it be better to help citizens make sure they have everything they need to vote? That way you don't have to be a total cuck by letting illegals vote too. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

That's because I don't give a flying fck about your ratio. Non-citizens may not vote.!

So if we put in onerous requirements that stop thousands of legal votes but cost us millions of legal votes also, that's fine.

There are practical limits here, and I'm trying to get to the details so you can reveal the foundational principles you want to follow.

But you don't care about that discussion.

Ok.

 

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So if we put in onerous requirements that stop thousands of legal votes but cost us millions of legal votes also, that's fine.

There's nothing 'onerous' about having id mike.  FFS.  Next you'll claim it's "onerous" to have them have to actually go in and vote, and you should just vote for them to save them the horrible effort  

[User]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are practical limits here, and I'm trying to get to the details so you can reveal the foundational principles you want to follow.

No, I don't think that you are. You are ignoring numerous responses to you here. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, User said:

No, I don't think that you are. You are ignoring numerous responses to you here. 

 

Shhhhh.... they're all on 'ignore'   Until he can think of a decent answer anyway. 

[gatomontes99]

Look, the questions is do we make important decisions by

A. Only allowing those that have a vested interest in the success and failure of this country, and the rights, freedoms and restrictions that governor us,

OR

B. Let the entire world determine how Americans are governed.

Only allowing voters that are citizens is the only acceptable answer. A.

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

 Only allowing voters that are citizens is the only acceptable answer. A.

Yes, only citizens may legally vote.  The question is more about practical application of the law.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, only citizens may legally vote.  The question is more about practical application of the law.

Practically speaking, everybody has identification or can easily get it. It's really not that hard. If you think they should have a big advertising campaign to make sure everybody knows they need it then absolutely. But requiring that people be able to identify themselves is not a barrier to voting

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

So if we put in onerous requirements that stop thousands of legal votes but cost us millions of legal votes also, that's fine.

There are practical limits here, and I'm trying to get to the details so you can reveal the foundational principles you want to follow.

But you don't care about that discussion.

Ok.

 

 

There is nothing onerous about producing ID to vote. It's an old rule that is essential to make sure only citizens vote.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok... some will drop the ball and be UNABLE to vote on voting day.  Trump will definitely lose some votes.  It will come down to the party organization to ensure their supporters are up to date I would say.
2. You're not getting my point.  How many legal voters would you deny the vote to stop an illegal voter ?  The answer should be that the ratio is less than 1:1.  Much less.

For critical thinking, you're barking up the wrong trees. But it's rather like the question of the death penalty.

How many innocents should the state murder to satisfy the primitive instinct for retributive justice against the guilty? 

How many citizens should the state disenfranchise to soothe unfounded fears of voter fraud? 

We prove eligibility when we register that is sufficient. Despite all the the fear mongering, rigorous study confirms every time that voter fraud is not a significant issue. There is no bogeyman to fight. We should not disenfranchise any eligible American solely to assuage the unfounded fears of their countrymen. 

Edited July 12, 2024 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

For critical thinking, you're barking up the wrong trees. But it's rather like the question of the death penalty.

How many innocents should the state murder to satisfy the primitive instinct for retributive justice against the guilty? 

How many citizens should the state disenfranchise too soothe unfounded fears of voter fraud? 

We prove eligibility when we register that is sufficient. Despite all the the fear mongering and rigorous study, voter fraud is not an issue. There is no bogeyman to fight. We should not disenfranchise any eligible American solely to assuage the unfounded fears of their countrymen. 

Sure- killing an innocent person and someone not voting because they forgot their id at home is pretty much the same thing.