RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,161
- 9,902
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Please stop inventing boogeymen Riley, it's unbecoming.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please stop inventing boogeymen Riley, it's unbecoming.It doesn’t fit their leftist agenda
Why do you think it has no basis in reality? Only because you don’t agree?A bald assertion with no basis in reality?
I’m not. I promise.Please stop inventing boogeymen Riley, it's unbecoming.
I think it has no basis in reality because there is nothing to support it. Let's break it down:Why do you think it has no basis in reality? Only because you don’t agree?
I doubt that.
Fair enough - you're just adopting boogeymen presented by other people rather than making them up yourself. That's not any better.I’m not. I promise.
Biden won by a landslide in 2016. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but a minority were probably involved in voter fraud, from the right (there is corruption on both ends of the political spectrum, in my opinion)I think it has no basis in reality because there is nothing to support it. Let's break it down:
"Yes - because the Right will always throw out bad ballots"
Sure - except for all those cases of actual, documented, prosecuted voter fraud in 2020 where Trump voters (i.e. "the Right"") voted twice or using deceased family members' ballots. If "the Right" always throws out bad ballots, they wouldn't have done that.
"and require ID"
State-level laws are irrelevant to the politics of an individual official. Minnesota has no voter ID law, so no one would have been permitted to ask for voter ID, regardless of their personal opinions.
" - while the Left always fights for any and all ballots"
All ballots? Really? All valid ballots, for sure, but we should strive to count every legitimate vote, should we not? Even if it takes some extra work to determine the validity?
"and no voter ID."
I'm in favor of voter ID, so long as it does not present a barrier to legitimate voters. Any voter ID should be readily available, free or very low cost (with subsidies available), and valid nationwide. What I oppose are the various patchwork laws that are inconsistent between states and that actively single out forms of ID in discriminatory ways (see the oft-discussed North Carolina law that was struck down). I think most people on "the left" would agree with me, once you got past the knee-jerk response honed by the many discriminatory voter ID laws that have been attempted in the past.
Fair enough - you're just adopting boogeymen presented by other people rather than making them up yourself. That's not any better.
The point is that there's zero evidence that this is some Democratic Party or "leftist" scheme outside of that fact that it fits your preconceived notions of what Democrats and "leftists" are like.
Recent history and recognizable patterns.Based on...what, exactly?
It happened with Hunter's laptop and all the 2020 election shenanigans - why not this?Oh, you're clairvoyant now?
I'm not alleging anything systemic. An absolute statement was made - I have shown it to be false.Biden won by a landslide in 2016. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but a minority were probably involved in voter fraud, from the right (there is corruption on both ends of the political spectrum, in my opinion)
There are a few things that can make voter ID laws discriminatory:Unless I misunderstood you, why is having an ID being discriminatory?
You don't have a constitutional right to buy alcohol. You do have one to vote. The ID is just to confirm that you are eligible to vote, not to allow you to cast your ballot - which is why you have to prove your identity to register anywhere. But there are ways of doing that that don't require a specific ID, and you have more time to do it.As a cashier in my late 20s, I couldn’t sell wine to a woman in her 50s because she didn’t have her ID on her. She told me “I’m old enough to be your mother.” I told her, “I’m sorry, I can’t sell alcohol to anyone if they don’t have an ID., that’s the law”
I’m sure voting is more important than drinking habits.
Or perhaps underthinking? I've noticed that you have a tendency to quickly agree with any ideas that fit into your worldview, regardless of any lack of evidence for them.Maybe, maybe I’m overthinking everything?
Ok. Thanks for your response, I appreciate your thoughtfulness.I'm not alleging anything systemic. An absolute statement was made - I have shown it to be false.
There are a few things that can make voter ID laws discriminatory:
1. If the types of ID accepted are discriminatory (see the North Carolina case, where the GOP did extensive research into which types of ID minorities were least likely to have, then included those on the list of accepted forms of ID).
2. If the ID costs money. Arguably, that amounts to a poll tax, which is illegal under federal law.
3. If there is no way to easily access the place to get an ID. In many parts of the country, there can be a significant drive to get to ID centers/DMV offices, which makes it harder for people without transportation to get an ID. DMV hours can also be limited, meaning that people might have to take time off of work to get there (which not everyone has the luxury of doing).
You don't have a constitutional right to buy alcohol. You do have one to vote. The ID is just to confirm that you are eligible to vote, not to allow you to cast your ballot - which is why you have to prove your identity to register anywhere. But there are ways of doing that that don't require a specific ID, and you have more time to do it.
Or perhaps underthinking? I've noticed that you have a tendency to quickly agree with any ideas that fit into your worldview, regardless of any lack of evidence for them.
This is something that is unlikely to happen for multiple reasons:Ok. Thanks for your response, I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
I have a simple question: Shouldn't someone PROVE themselves they are the person when they vote, if that makes sense? A valid ID makes the point.
I can say I'm "James Smith" when in reality my real name is "Riley P....."
Can anyone disprove me? I would NEED proof of my identity.
Sorry, for begging the question. I don't know how to actually ask it, otherwise.
Because that puts you in a world where everything is a conspiracy, even in the absence of evidence. You just hypothesize it, and then you know it's true.It happened with Hunter's laptop and all the 2020 election shenanigans - why not this?
I don't follow this logic.This is something that is unlikely to happen for multiple reasons:
1. It's very high-risk - how do you identify someone who is registered to vote, but won't actually vote? How do you know that one of the poll workers (who are usually local to the polling place) doesn't know that person? If you're wrong, the penalties are severe.
2. It's very low-reward - you get one vote out of the scheme.
3. Expanding the operation to a scale that can actually affect anything would require an enormous number of people, and people talk. If you wanted to commit voter fraud on a significant scale, there are much more efficient methods.
In short, the barriers raised by voter ID tend to prevent people who can legally vote from voting more than they stop fraudulent votes. If the cure is worse than the disease, then perhaps the cure isn't worth it.
If you know history and recognize patterns it is a reasonable conclusion to come to.Because that puts you in a world where everything is a conspiracy, even in the absence of evidence. You just hypothesize it, and then you know it's true.
Does the same logic apply to someone proven guilty of fraud in multiple cases?If you know history and recognize patterns it is a reasonable conclusion to come to.
A man who beat on all his ex-girlfriends might not beat his new one, but if I were a betting man.....
Depends on what you mean by "proven" and "fraud".Does the same logic apply to someone proven guilty of fraud in multiple cases?
-- A2SG, asking for a friend....
Proven in a court of law, and according to the laws passed by the relevant legislature.Depends on what you mean by "proven" and "fraud".
"But, your honor, everyone does it!" isn't a valid legal defense.If you mean that they did the same legal thing that everyone else does - but they were considered unpopular by the judge, so they threw the unprecedented book at them - then no - not necessarily.
And I was comparing that crime to the crime of fraud. If someone has a history of doing something illegal, it's not unusual or untoward to consider they might do it again, if given the chance.Just to be clear - I was not claiming that the man in my example was beating on his ex-girlfriends while sparring with them in the boxing ring or any other justified reason like that.
I was talking about assault and battery.
Thanks for your response.This is something that is unlikely to happen for multiple reasons:
1. It's very high-risk - how do you identify someone who is registered to vote, but won't actually vote? How do you know that one of the poll workers (who are usually local to the polling place) doesn't know that person? If you're wrong, the penalties are severe.
2. It's very low-reward - you get one vote out of the scheme.
3. Expanding the operation to a scale that can actually affect anything would require an enormous number of people, and people talk. If you wanted to commit voter fraud on a significant scale, there are much more efficient methods.
In short, the barriers raised by voter ID tend to prevent people who can legally vote from voting more than they stop fraudulent votes. If the cure is worse than the disease, then perhaps the cure isn't worth it.
I said, "legal thing".Proven in a court of law, and according to the laws passed by the relevant legislature.
"But, your honor, everyone does it!" isn't a valid legal defense.
And I was comparing that crime to the crime of fraud. If someone has a history of doing something illegal, it's not unusual or untoward to consider they might do it again, if given the chance.
-- A2SG, especially if they're not held accountable for doing it the last few times.....
There is no constitutional right to buy alcohol. Alcohol is legal yes. However you must abide by the age law restrictions. Same is true for voting, you must meet the legal requirements..I'm not alleging anything systemic. An absolute statement was made - I have shown it to be false.
There are a few things that can make voter ID laws discriminatory:
1. If the types of ID accepted are discriminatory (see the North Carolina case, where the GOP did extensive research into which types of ID minorities were least likely to have, then included those on the list of accepted forms of ID).
2. If the ID costs money. Arguably, that amounts to a poll tax, which is illegal under federal law.
3. If there is no way to easily access the place to get an ID. In many parts of the country, there can be a significant drive to get to ID centers/DMV offices, which makes it harder for people without transportation to get an ID. DMV hours can also be limited, meaning that people might have to take time off of work to get there (which not everyone has the luxury of doing).
You don't have a constitutional right to buy alcohol. You do have one to vote.
We need to make sure voting laws are followed.The ID is just to confirm that you are eligible to vote, not to allow you to cast your ballot - which is why you have to prove your identity to register anywhere. But there are ways of doing that that don't require a specific ID, and you have more time to do it.
Or perhaps underthinking? I've noticed that you have a tendency to quickly agree with any ideas that fit into your worldview, regardless of any lack of evidence for them.
Actually, it is illegal. Falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records are all illegal. The specific law is New York Executive Law § 63(12).I said, "legal thing".
There is nothing illegal about convincing a bank that a property is worth X if the bank ends up agreeing and you pay back the loan.
Where is the fraud?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?