Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The Republican's are bringing a bill to tighten qualifications for voting.

https://apnews.com/article/midterms-voting-laws-photo-id-citizenship-republicans-feecb51a6efa41cf32d18fe4b15c08ce

Imagine...only US citizens allowed to vote in US elections. Its unfortunate that a law needs to be enacted to ensure the reliability of elections.

  • Like 2

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Its unfortunate that a law needs to be enacted to ensure the reliability of elections.

Republicans might as well be saying there's never been a secure election in America's past, ever.

How on Earth they ever got this far is a real mystery.

  • Thanks 1

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted
4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The Republican's are bringing a bill to tighten qualifications for voting.

https://apnews.com/article/midterms-voting-laws-photo-id-citizenship-republicans-feecb51a6efa41cf32d18fe4b15c08ce

Imagine...only US citizens allowed to vote in US elections. Its unfortunate that a law needs to be enacted to ensure the reliability of elections.

You're FOS. The OBVIOUS goal is voter SUPPRESSION, and you're fine with that because you're a fascist and care NOTHING about democracy.. 🤮

Posted
17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How on Earth they ever got this far is a real mystery.

By following the advice of their mentors and repeating the lies over and over again.

Posted (edited)

As it turns out for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries US elections were rife with actual corruption, which laid the groundwork for long-term skepticism.

Meanwhile in Canada, we haven't proven to be as jaded but we're still prone to mistrust. Our early elections were often characterized by violence and intimidation by gangs working for their candidates.

I really don't know why we can't all develop more technocratic governments who rely more on a foundation of science and accumulated knowledge. As I've said before I think representatives picked like juries would take an enormous amount of the thirst for power that fuels the urge to cheat out of the system.

Maybe when AI takes over it'll be benign and sympathetic to humans character failings. Unless AI is programmed with them. I wouldn't put it past us.

Edited by eyeball

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted
2 hours ago, robosmith said:

ou're FOS. The OBVIOUS goal is voter SUPPRESSION, and you're fine with that because you're a fascist and care NOTHING about democracy.. 🤮

The electoral process should be as secure and transparent as possible. Providing ID, updating voter rolls and so on make perfect sense.

Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...

Posted
26 minutes ago, ironstone said:

The electoral process should be as secure and transparent as possible. Providing ID, updating voter rolls and so on make perfect sense.

They are already secure. What you Canucks don't understand is the HISTORY of RepubliCON voter suppression.

Esp in the South like GA.

Posted
22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They are already secure. What you Canucks don't understand is the HISTORY of RepubliCON voter suppression.

Esp in the South like GA.

We're not all blind to it. We understand it's a hard-boiled right-wing conservative thing.

Our conservatives are generally more soft-boiled, their hearts really just aren't into it like yours.

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted
44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They are already secure. What you Canucks don't understand is the HISTORY of RepubliCON voter suppression.

Esp in the South like GA.

What constitutes Republican voter suppression? Specifically?

Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...

Posted
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Republicans might as well be saying there's never been a secure election in America's past, ever.

How on Earth they ever got this far is a real mystery.

Well...watching the Libbies cheat for years and trying to this day, might be a clue.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

They are already secure. What you Canucks don't understand is the HISTORY of RepubliCON voter suppression.

Esp in the South like GA.

Voter suppression

Democrat to English translation: not allowing voters that have no legal basis for voting.

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted
5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Republicans might as well be saying there's never been a secure election in America's past, ever.

 

I think they are probably saying that and they're probably not wrong.  So what's your point?

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

We're not all blind to it. We understand it's a hard-boiled right-wing conservative thing.

Fair an free elections? 

Well....  sort of i guess.  Isn't it supposed to be a left wing thing as well?

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Voter suppression

Democrat to English translation: not allowing voters that have no legal basis for voting.

And here's the thing. It's not like the laws being proposed aren't in use in other countries including Canada. And there's this strange idea that somehow nobody should ever have to expend any energy whatsoever in order to vote.

With making you get personal I D It is so discouraging to these people that they couldn't possibly imagine doing it in order to vote then I've seriously questioned whether they should be voting in the first place.

If they were genuinely concerned they would be out there forming groups to make it easy for people to get any ID they need.

The fact is the Democrats see this I was being away to weed out illegals and illegals have always benefited them

 

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I think they are probably saying that and they're probably not wrong.  So what's your point?

What I said.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Fair an free elections?

No voter suppression.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well....  sort of i guess.  Isn't it supposed to be a left wing thing as well?

Nope, it's certainly not my thing.

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted
3 hours ago, ironstone said:

What constitutes Republican voter suppression? Specifically?

Unnecessary road blocks to voting. It used to be very overt, but more recently they just limit resources in neighborhoods they don't want voting. Result is LONG LINES and few or no drop boxes so people have to wait to vote. And the people they don't want voting generally have to take off work to vote and have to take off work, meaning a long wait costs them much more money in lost wages. Of course there are other creative approaches to limiting the wrong votes.

Do you understand now?

Posted
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

What I said.

You didn't really say a point. He said you might as well say this, when in actuality that is what they said. So again what was your point?

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

No voter suppression.

The left wing seems to think that fair and free elections are voter suppression

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nope, it's certainly not my thing.

Fair and free elections? Well that's true, I guess thinking about it for a moment you've never been a proponent of that and you've been quite vocal about that. I apologize, but I was kind of talking about the left in general rather than you specifically

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
7 hours ago, ironstone said:

What constitutes Republican voter suppression? Specifically?

If white rural right-leaning voters were the ones who tended to not have photo ID Trump wouldn't be doing this. 

This is voter suppression and a power grab.  The people who don't realize this aren't very smart, or willfully naive because it benefits their politics (which makes them tyrannical too).

  • Like 1

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Unnecessary road blocks to voting.

Unnecessary? How? If a person is an American citizen, he/she has a birth certificate or a citizenship document. I believe one can then easily get a picture ID proving citizenship. And because, by some strange happenstance...there happen to currently be tens of millions of "non-citizens" in the country, it's prudent to scrutinize every voter. So it is necessary especially these days.

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Result is LONG LINES and few or no drop boxes so people have to wait to vote.

Long lines? So what? I could understand a demand for a statutory holiday on voting day. At least that would be reasonable. But...long lines is your issue? That's just pathetic. 

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Do you understand now?

No...I dont. Your argument is pure fluff. I see no reasonable argument to oppose voter ID. I mean...unless you want to let all the illegals to vote. But...as an American...you wouldn't really want that... would you?

 

Edited by Nationalist

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Unnecessary? How? If a person is an American citizen, he/she has a birth certificate or a citizenship document. I believe one can then easily get a picture ID proving citizenship. And because, by some strange happenstance...there happen to currently be tens of millions of "non-citizens" in the country, it's prudent to scrutinize every voter. So it is necessary especially these days.

What you, a complete amateur who has NEVER even worked in US election polling, believes is necessary means NOTHING.

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Long lines? So what? I could understand a demand for a statutory holiday on voting day. At least that would be reasonable. But...long lines is your issue? That's just pathetic. 

Can you read? It's much more than long lines. In reality I have never had to wait more that 15 minutes to vote because I'm not in a disfavored neighborhood. 

People have jobs and it's costing them money to vote. The ISSUE is differential burden designed to skew the vote..

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No...I dont. Your argument is pure fluff. I see no reasonable argument to oppose voter ID. I mean...unless you want to let all the illegals to vote. But...as an American...you wouldn't really want that... would you?

 

You will defend ANYTHING that advantages YOUR AGENDA. 🤮

Fortunately you have ZERO influence here

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What you, a complete amateur who has NEVER even worked in US election polling, believes is necessary means NOTHING.

Can you read? It's much more than long lines. In reality I have never had to wait more that 15 minutes to vote because I'm not in a disfavored neighborhood. 

People have jobs and it's costing them money to vote. The ISSUE is differential burden designed to skew the vote..

You will defend ANYTHING that advantages YOUR AGENDA. 🤮

Fortunately you have ZERO influence here

So...you seem to be saying the poorer parts of cities dont have enough polling stations? OK...move to have additional polling stations in those areas. That would be reasonable. 

BTW...as this is a political discussion site, my opinions are quite valid. If you dont like it, go grace another site.

Edited by Nationalist

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If white rural right-leaning voters were the ones who tended to not have photo ID Trump wouldn't be doing this. 

 

White right leaning voters are smart enough to get ID.

Are you suggesting that non-white left-wing voters are too stupid to be able to acquire ID?

Or is it that you're saying they're too lazy to and just don't care. In which case why would we want them voting?

The ones who really don't tend to have the appropriate ID are people who shouldn't be voting at all because they're not citizens

Let's be clear. Canada has had this for years. It is not a barrier to entry, traditionally our voter turnout is as high or higher than America's

  • Like 2

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
39 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

White right leaning voters are smart enough to get ID.

Are you suggesting that non-white left-wing voters are too stupid to be able to acquire ID?

Or is it that you're saying they're too lazy to and just don't care. In which case why would we want them voting?

The ones who really don't tend to have the appropriate ID are people who shouldn't be voting at all because they're not citizens

Let's be clear. Canada has had this for years. It is not a barrier to entry, traditionally our voter turnout is as high or higher than America's

Agreed.

The Libbies have no reasonable argument to oppose voter ID laws. They simply need to cheat.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Our early elections were often characterized by violence and intimidation by gangs working for their candidates.

When I was young I worked for an old carpenter who told me about elections in his small town when he was young, which would have been in the 20's or 30's. Outside the polling station's entrance each party would have a barrel of rum, free drinks to sway voters.

Posted
4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Agreed.

The Libbies have no reasonable argument to oppose voter ID laws. They simply need to cheat.

There are a lot of states with voter ID laws and it changed nothing in demographics of who voted. The whole claim that voter id laws create this repressive environment is nonsense. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If white rural right-leaning voters were the ones who tended to not have photo ID Trump wouldn't be doing this. 

This is voter suppression and a power grab.  The people who don't realize this aren't very smart, or willfully naive because it benefits their politics (which makes them tyrannical too).

Why do you assume that it's somehow more difficult for non-whites to get photo ID?

All adult passengers (18 years and older) flying within the United States are required to present an acceptable form of photo ID at the airport security checkpoint. This is enforced by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

See the hypocrisy here?

Edited by ironstone
  • Like 2

Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...