The idea that it’s difficult to vote is what I can’t get my mind around. Literally one of the easiest things to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Printable View
The idea that it’s difficult to vote is what I can’t get my mind around. Literally one of the easiest things to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
You gotta remember not everyone has the same life as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishThe idea that it’s difficult to vote is what I can’t get my mind around. Literally one of the easiest things to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Give me some examples of it’s just too hard for “this group” of people because “x,y,z”.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanYou gotta remember not everyone has the same life as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
Reality is there isn’t a significant number of people that would really like to vote but find it too hard, fantasy land to think otherwise. People that don’t vote either don’t give a shit or don’t think their vote matters. In your life have you ever met 1 person that said, “damn I really want to vote this year but this shit is way too hard.”? I don’t.
Democrats focus upon a tiny percentage of the population which will be affected by things like voter ID laws.
"What about the people with no ID??!?!?!?!!11111"
In reality, Democrats hate voter ID laws because, of the small percentage of the population with no ID, almost all of them would vote Democrat.
It's all selfishness, not any desire to have fair elections.
But this isn't even about voter ID.
In this case, they support mail-in voting for two reasons:
1) There is a higher amount of voter apathy in the Democratic Party than Republicans, so anything to make it super-easy to vote will benefit Dems, and they know it.
2) There is more passionate hatred of Trump on the left than love of Trump on the right. Therefore, if voter fraud is super easy to commit (as it is with mail-in voting), it is more likely that more Democrats will do it than Republicans. If you feel that committing undetectable voter fraud is necessary to help prevent the embodiment of evil from getting 4 more years in office, you're much more likely to do it than if you simply disagree with the opposing candidate. Democrats are also very aware of this, hence the rabid support for universal mail-in voting. If you think it's about protecting people from COVID, you're kidding yourself.
No one he genuinely believes #2. No one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You mean the part about protecting people from COVID, right?
BTW, notice I can admit that the Republican Party is selfish and acts in its own interest for winning elections, but no Democrats here will admit that their own party's views on voting is selfish?
Such delusion.
Everything from Democrats has to be about supposedly bettering the world.
Trump is operating with a campaign fraud lobotomy without Bannon & Parscale.
I’m not so worried about Trump creeping the election again. At least not effectively.
Hopefully, Trump won’t creep the election as much as he has creeped on underage girls over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
https://youtu.be/Yu9IdxshAkc
Druff, your false equivalency argument claiming that the Democrats are currently as corrupt and destructive to our country’s democratic election process as the Trump-led GOP is utterly fucking ridiculous. In fact, your doing so contributes to the destruction of faith in that democratic process that Team Trump has been pursuing as a means to cloud the perception of the public about the fairness of the upcoming election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://youtu.be/yuh7YhUabCQ
https://youtu.be/sJcwSUoG5Ys
Tell that to the guy who has to take the entire day off from work in order to voteQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishThe idea that it’s difficult to vote is what I can’t get my mind around. Literally one of the easiest things to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Druff, wake up to the truth: The GOP has been on a rampant campaign of voter suppression ever since the conservative-dominated Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act last decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://youtu.be/al3qY8ZMHEc
GOPers are bitching about mail-in voting because that would help to undo the voting suppression measures the GOP put in place in those states.
Most states voting polls close at 7-8, if someone wants to vote they can. Besides this pool of people would be Republican majority. You’re not giving the average citizen credit for being a functioning adult.Quote:
Originally Posted by big dickTell that to the guy who has to take the entire day off from work in order to voteQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/24/91663...ded-pa-ballots
Well that about wraps it up for no evidence of fraud.
Quick google shows a study from 2006 that found 11% of US Citizens old enough to vote didn't have government IDs, about 22 million people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...file_39242.pdf
(Although I expect you figured it out in your head and that number is off)
And Republicans don't care about suppressing people without IDs because almost all of them would vote Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The real question is for every 1 theoretical fraudulent vote, how many legitimate ones are you willing to suppress.
That study is crap, in part because they surveyed 987 people one time, and extrapolated it to the US population of 330 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanQuick google shows a study from 2006 that found 11% of US Citizens old enough to vote didn't have government IDs, about 22 million people.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...file_39242.pdf
(Although I expect you figured it out in your head and that number is off)
And Republicans don't care about suppressing people without IDs because almost all of them would vote Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The real question is for every 1 theoretical fraudulent vote, how many legitimate ones are you willing to suppress.
The study also focused on whether the ID is "current and unexpired", which is kinda dirty, because a middle ground could always be reached that a picture ID either current or expired in the past 10 years would be ok. That would certainly be much better than nothing. Notice they asked 4 questions, and they couldn't have added a 5th question of, "If you don't have current ID, do you have a government ID which expired in the past 10 years?" They didn't want that answer, because it would shrink their numbers.
Tell me, would you support a national ID system, provided free to all citizens who apply for it, and then that being required for voting?
Most Democrats don't want this, and start making excuses for why this wouldn't be good.
The bottom line is that Democrats know that some people just don't feel like getting ID, and they want those people voting, so they push for no-ID voting despite its obvious major security holes. Everyone has a right to vote. Everyone does NOT have a right to completely effortless voting. If you can't expend a tiny bit of effort, if you can't vote, it's your fault.
Democrats will do what they need to do in order to ensure they get more people voting for them, even if it fucks up the election security. They are not doing this from any sort of moral perspective.
So much of what Democrats do is performative. Look at all the histrionics about "racist police" and the wild exaggerations about the extermination of black lives by police. In the meantime, they completely ignore the actual danger to black people (murders from others within their community), and they advocate defunding the police which will make that problem even worse. Democrats don't care about black lives -- they only care about the political points they can score from it.
Being a Democrat is more about feeling like you did the right thing than actually doing the right thing.
Says the racist. Look at the tripe from the mouth of a known racist. He believes racism in the police forceQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThat study is crap, in part because they surveyed 987 people one time, and extrapolated it to the US population of 330 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
The study also focused on whether the ID is "current and unexpired", which is kinda dirty, because a middle ground could always be reached that a picture ID either current or expired in the past 10 years would be ok. That would certainly be much better than nothing. Notice they asked 4 questions, and they couldn't have added a 5th question of, "If you don't have current ID, do you have a government ID which expired in the past 10 years?" They didn't want that answer, because it would shrink their numbers.
Tell me, would you support a national ID system, provided free to all citizens who apply for it, and then that being required for voting?
Most Democrats don't want this, and start making excuses for why this wouldn't be good.
The bottom line is that Democrats know that some people just don't feel like getting ID, and they want those people voting, so they push for no-ID voting despite its obvious major security holes. Everyone has a right to vote. Everyone does NOT have a right to completely effortless voting. If you can't expend a tiny bit of effort, if you can't vote, it's your fault.
Democrats will do what they need to do in order to ensure they get more people voting for them, even if it fucks up the election security. They are not doing this from any sort of moral perspective.
So much of what Democrats do is performative. Look at all the histrionics about "racist police" and the wild exaggerations about the extermination of black lives by police. In the meantime, they completely ignore the actual danger to black people (murders from others within their community), and they advocate defunding the police which will make that problem even worse. Democrats don't care about black lives -- they only care about the political points they can score from it.
Being a Democrat is more about feeling like you did the right thing than actually doing the right thing.
is much ado about nothing. He finds it hard to believe there is systemic racism when 3 out of ten posters here fit the description. Racism isn't much of a problem if you're on the "right" side
Why so many Dems without IDs? I thought you just got done telling me how “educated” your party is. You really think there’s a significant number of those 22 million (if that number is accurate) that really want to vote? They aren’t functioning adults Duped. If someone wants to vote it’s very simple. You trying to argue that it’s difficult is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanQuick google shows a study from 2006 that found 11% of US Citizens old enough to vote didn't have government IDs, about 22 million people.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...file_39242.pdf
(Although I expect you figured it out in your head and that number is off)
And Republicans don't care about suppressing people without IDs because almost all of them would vote Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The real question is for every 1 theoretical fraudulent vote, how many legitimate ones are you willing to suppress.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishWhy so many Dems without IDs? I thought you just got done telling me how “educated” your party is. You really think there’s a significant number of those 22 million (if that number is accurate) that really want to vote? They aren’t functioning adults Duped. If someone wants to vote it’s very simple. You trying to argue that it’s difficult is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
duped_by_smollet is literally dumb as fuck, hilariously bad takes and opinions, i mean he fucking believed juicy smollet and that black Nascar driver that thought any rope is a noose for fucks sake
What a shitshow this is going to be. Thanks Democrats.
https://twitter.com/RichieMcGinniss/...82521364520960
Some people voted twice in the Georgia primary this year. They were all caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishI thought dems said there's safeguards so it's impossible to vote twice. Even if someone did only 1 vote would count. Nothing to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
In some states if you are issued a mail-in ballot that is recorded and if you want to vote in person you have to bring the mail-in ballot and surrender it.
So there are safeguards in place.
Druff, you can be a conservative and that's cool. I disagree with you but you have carefully considered and well-reasoned opinions. This on the other hand is beneath you. This is so thoroughly dishonest you should be embarrassed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
When a mail-in ballot is counted, the voter's signature on the ballot is matched to the signature on file. If it doesn't sufficiently match, what happens depends on the state. Some states allow the voter to correct the problem with an affidavit or appearing in person with ID. Some states just toss the ballot. Depending on the state 3-7% of mail-in ballots are invalidated due to insufficiently matching signature. That is a far bigger problem than the potential for fraud which is tiny. People don't sign identically every time, so almost 100% of those discarded ballots are real and they are discarded anyway. What's the chance that a ballot slips through with a forged signature? You'd have to be an expert forger.
It's also almost impossible to vote twice as the same person due to the safeguards in place. They record who has a mail-in ballot and if the voter tries to vote in person either they have to surrender the mail-in ballot, or the mail-in ballot is discarded after it is checked against the system's record of who voted in person. The latter happens in states where mail-in ballots are not counted until the polls close.
There are very stiff penalties for voting fraud. In your scenario, a person who collected a bunch of unused mail-in ballots and wants to cast them all:
1. Must forge the signature of the voter whose ballot it is, well enough to withstand scrutiny
2. Must hope that voter doesn't (or didn't) vote in person
3. Must be willing to risk going to prison in exchange for casting a handful of extra votes.
This is so absurd, and you know it is absurd. You should be embarrassed for even saying it.
So are unicorns, but they're everywhere. Everywhere, I tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It wraps it up for people who don't bother to check whether it's true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenchjockey
Do you realize what you're saying here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakDruff, you can be a conservative and that's cool. I disagree with you but you have carefully considered and well-reasoned opinions. This on the other hand is beneath you. This is so thoroughly dishonest you should be embarrassed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
When a mail-in ballot is counted, the voter's signature on the ballot is matched to the signature on file. If it doesn't sufficiently match, what happens depends on the state. Some states allow the voter to correct the problem with an affidavit or appearing in person with ID. Some states just toss the ballot. Depending on the state 3-7% of mail-in ballots are invalidated due to insufficiently matching signature. That is a far bigger problem than the potential for fraud which is tiny. People don't sign identically every time, so almost 100% of those discarded ballots are real and they are discarded anyway. What's the chance that a ballot slips through with a forged signature? You'd have to be an expert forger.
It's also almost impossible to vote twice as the same person due to the safeguards in place. They record who has a mail-in ballot and if the voter tries to vote in person either they have to surrender the mail-in ballot, or the mail-in ballot is discarded after it is checked against the system's record of who voted in person. The latter happens in states where mail-in ballots are not counted until the polls close.
There are very stiff penalties for voting fraud. In your scenario, a person who collected a bunch of unused mail-in ballots and wants to cast them all:
1. Must forge the signature of the voter whose ballot it is, well enough to withstand scrutiny
2. Must hope that voter doesn't (or didn't) vote in person
3. Must be willing to risk going to prison in exchange for casting a handful of extra votes.
This is so absurd, and you know it is absurd. You should be embarrassed for even saying it.
Either fraud is going to run rampant, or they are going to invalidate a ton of valid votes due to signature mismatches for legitimate ballots.
How do you not see that this is a huge problem either way?
How is 'the amount of fraud will be negligible' not a possibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Those aren't the only two choices. You left out the truth, which is that fraud is nearly non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffDo you realize what you're saying here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Either fraud is going to run rampant, or they are going to invalidate a ton of valid votes due to signature mismatches for legitimate ballots.
How do you not see that this is a huge problem either way?
I don't like the idea of valid ballots being invalidated, but that's a lot better than not allowing mail-in voting at all. Far more people will be prevented from voting if they aren't able to vote by mail, especially this year.
Several states have all mail-in elections and they're doing fine.
The real reason for the fake "mail-in ballot fraud" narrative: to disenfranchise Democrats. That is the only reason. Republicans have been trying this since the rise of the New Right in the Reagan era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
And it continues today, out of their own mouths (requires subscription): https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...e11_story.html
Your bullshit isn't going to work this year. People are going to vote whether you like it or not.
Trump has gone to court to stop or limit ballot drop-boxes, and has sued to stop Democratic-aligned groups from offering their own ballot drop boxes.
The California Republican party is doing the exact same thing in areas where they think they're likely to collect Republican ballots. When the Cal AG told them to stop as per state law, the Republicans told him to go fuck himself in so many words.
Rank hypocrisy. Once again, there is no fraud, it's all about disenfranchising people who are likely to vote for the Democrats. That is the only reason.
Fuck disenfranchsing scumbags. You can all drink bleach.
Druff,
Are you still trying to peddle the bullshit narrative that mail-in ballots are likely to result in material levels of voter fraud in this election? Because the FBI director, Christopher Wray, as well as ALL of the leading state officials responsible for the integrity of the elections say otherwise.
https://youtu.be/uT9k1QbUo6M
So we know Druff doesn’t leave the house much. He only goes to get groceries loaded in to his car, hiking, and the necessary root canal.
Did Druff mail in his vote?
Survey says .....
Don't worry, soon we will be treated to an explanation of why it's fine for him to do it but not fine for it to be generally available to everyone. Expect it to include an accusation that Democrats are hypocrites and/or fraudsters.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmndkutr
He shouldn't, given his pre existing conditions of being corpulent, old, and having LPR on top of rolling in with the immune system of a late stage AIDS patient.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmndkutr
This from the 34-year-old who got permanent lung damage from COVID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeHe shouldn't, given his pre existing conditions of being corpulent, old, and having LPR on top of rolling in with the immune system of a late stage AIDS patient.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmndkutr
https://i.redd.it/cwkcmv3s8ea31.jpg
I don't understand how you can say fraud is "non-existent" when it's impossible to detect, and impossible to stop unless you also invalidate tons of legitimate votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakThose aren't the only two choices. You left out the truth, which is that fraud is nearly non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I don't like the idea of valid ballots being invalidated, but that's a lot better than not allowing mail-in voting at all. Far more people will be prevented from voting if they aren't able to vote by mail, especially this year.
Several states have all mail-in elections and they're doing fine.
So let me get this straight. Democrats think this is themostimportantelectionofourlife and that Trumpisathreattohumanity, and they are willing to burndownbuildingsandbeatpeopleup during protests. Yet somehow they're not willing to mail in extra ballots which show up at their house?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
They see Trump as the modern Hitler, and the narrative for a long time for many on the left has been "the ends justify the means" regarding opposing him. He's supposedly so bad that lying, cheating, and committing acts of violence is justified if it will keep him out of office for a second term.
Now suddenly they're all going to fall in line and vote fairly, even though it's super easy to cheat and impossible to get caught?
Come on. That defies common sense.
So basically you're advocating a terrible voting system which either can't detect fraud (lax or no signature verification) or will invalidate a ton of votes (strict signature verification). Either way is a disaster.
Yes, I mailed in my vote. But I also would have if there wasn't universal mail-in voting. I would have requested an absentee ballot, an option which has been available to me for all 30 years I've been eligible to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmndkutr
I'm not against absentee balloting, as the chance for fraud there is much less, given the extra steps required to acquire ballots. Universal mail-in is a disaster, for reasons I mentioned.
CALLED ITQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYes, I mailed in my vote. But I also would have if there wasn't universal mail-in voting. I would have requested an absentee ballot, an option which has been available to me for all 30 years I've been eligible to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmndkutr
I'm not against absentee balloting, as the chance for fraud there is much less, given the extra steps required to acquire ballots. Universal mail-in is a disaster, for reasons I mentioned.
:glory
If Druff lived in Texas, he wouldn’t have been issued an absentee ballot based on his requested reason unless he committed voter fraud by lying and saying that he would out of the state when in-person voting is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakCALLED ITQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
:glory
Also true. The rules vary significantly from state to state. Druff, what would you do if you lived in Texas? "I don't want to vote in person to reduce the risk of COVID" is not an acceptable reason to vote absentee in Texas. I'd like to know what you'd do if you lived there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyIf Druff lived in Texas, he wouldn’t have been issued an absentee ballot based on his requested reason unless he committed voter fraud by lying and saying that he would out of the state when in-person voting is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Needing a reason for absentee balloting is dumb, and I've never supported that.
I'm not sure what I would do if I were in Texas, but that's irrelevant, because I'm not, and I'm not arguing for their system.
I'm arguing against universal mail-in balloting.
Still trying to understand how "studies" can show that undetectable fraud is "nonexistent". What is their method? "If we can't see it, then it's not happening"?
So you are implying that mail-in voting in the 5 states that have had universal mail-in voting before this year — Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Utah, and Colorado — has allowed rampant undetected voter fraud??? And you do so without a shred of evidence of such voting fraud and contrary to the data collected by The Heritage Foundation??? Wow! You are so fair and unbiased!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...us-states.html