voting by mail should be implemented nationwide

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 63
#31
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
so you agree blacks can't get i.d.s or have internet access?  because the argument against voter i.d. from the democrats says that.....so which is it?  which one is correct to either allow or disallow voter i.d. laws because blacks can't get i.d.s.

House votes to support illegal immigrant voting in local elections


regardless of what has passed or the veiled meaning of what they are saying and attempting to do, it's the thought that counts as the saying goes, it sure seems to be their intent.


as you will notice most accept a driver's licence as i.d.
States Offering Driver’s Licenses to Immigrants
huh looks like democrat states doesn't it......again the intent can't be denied and should be obvious to everyone.


#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the same democrats that say we must provide ID to illegal invaders also says we cannot provide voter ID to blacks because..reasons.
#33
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
so many blind eyes to the irony and hypocrisy.  
#34
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@PressF4Respect
#35
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok, that's quite a bit. I'll go into it in-depth later
#36
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, if Trump was only against the apparent fraud in mail-in voting, then he would've said to fix it. Instead, he said to remove it entirely.
#37
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Only 1/3 of states require an excuse to receive an absentee ballot, so in 2/3 of states, "absentee voting" and "mail-in voting" are synonymous.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
I would remove fraudulent mail-in voting if it was proposed.

You're not going to convince Trump until you are willing to do the things to make mail-in voting secure, like using proper ID.

Otherwise, you will have community organizers running around looking for people unwilling or unable to vote and they will use their info to manufacture votes. Impossible to detect that kind of fraud.

Election security and integrity could be enhanced by ensuring:

  • Voter registration rolls are current with correct addresses. At a minimum, persons who have died or moved outside of the district should be removed from the rolls. 
  • Voters are asked to provide a valid signature and a photo ID whenever appropriate, upon registering to vote, and voting in-person or by mail.
  • Voters submit absentee and mail ballot requests in writing to ensure only registered voters receive ballots with signatures and photo IDs validated.
  • Partisan and campaign workers are prevented from harvesting and delivering ballots. A voter’s ballot should be treated as sacred and secret and generally should not be given to a third-party non-election official.
  • All persons registering to vote, voting in-person, and receiving absentee ballots should be notified that they are subject to perjury charges if they vote under false pretenses.
Politicians should not use the coronavirus pandemic to significantly alter the way elections are conducted to achieve political objectives and power. The voter’s right to freely and fairly select his or her national, state and local representatives should be preserved. And the only way to do that is to ensure that any increased use of mail voting is accompanied by strong safeguards, including voter ID, to protect the integrity of our elections. The future of our constitutional republic and U.S. national security depends on it.   
#39
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Is mail-in voting inherently fraudulent?
#40
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
You're not going to convince Trump until you are willing to do the things to make mail-in voting secure, like using proper ID.

Otherwise, you will have community organizers running around looking for people unwilling or unable to vote and they will use their info to manufacture votes. Impossible to detect that kind of fraud.

Election security and integrity could be enhanced by ensuring:

  • Voter registration rolls are current with correct addresses. At a minimum, persons who have died or moved outside of the district should be removed from the rolls. 
  • Voters are asked to provide a valid signature and a photo ID whenever appropriate, upon registering to vote, and voting in-person or by mail.
  • Voters submit absentee and mail ballot requests in writing to ensure only registered voters receive ballots with signatures and photo IDs validated.
  • Partisan and campaign workers are prevented from harvesting and delivering ballots. A voter’s ballot should be treated as sacred and secret and generally should not be given to a third-party non-election official.
  • All persons registering to vote, voting in-person, and receiving absentee ballots should be notified that they are subject to perjury charges if they vote under false pretenses.
Politicians should not use the coronavirus pandemic to significantly alter the way elections are conducted to achieve political objectives and power. The voter’s right to freely and fairly select his or her national, state and local representatives should be preserved. And the only way to do that is to ensure that any increased use of mail voting is accompanied by strong safeguards, including voter ID, to protect the integrity of our elections. The future of our constitutional republic and U.S. national security depends on it.   
Ok so it seems like the answer is no, mail-in elections aren't inherently fraudulent.

If that's the case, then why did Trump say to remove it?


#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
You're not going to convince Trump until you are willing to do the things to make mail-in voting secure, like using proper ID.
#42
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
You're not getting my point.

If Trump knows that mail-in voting is fixable, then he wouldn't have said that "it should be removed". It's like the difference between:

Windows 10 has flaws. Microsoft should fix them.
and

Windows 10 has flaws. Microsoft should discontinue it.

#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
There's not a single Democrat that needs Trump to explain how to hold secure elections.

Microsoft doesn't need your unsolicited opinion on how to code software either.
#44
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you agree blacks can't get i.d.s or have internet access?  because the argument against voter i.d. from the democrats says that.....so which is it?  which one is correct to either allow or disallow voter i.d. laws because blacks can't get i.d.s.
I thought that IDs were universal in the US. After doing research, I found out that I was dead wrong. 11% of Americans don't have photo ID.
That's 21 million American citizens you are excluding if you require photo IDs to vote. 
Besides, aren't most libertarians and republicans against a National Identification System (as it could potentially be used as a national database for government surveillance)?

House votes to support illegal immigrant voting in local elections
It's important to note that they're local elections, not federal.


regardless of what has passed or the veiled meaning of what they are saying and attempting to do, it's the thought that counts as the saying goes, it sure seems to be their intent.
Alright, there are two things that the post says. Firstly, the Democrats apparently voted against a bill that would ensure that only American citizens could vote. Secondly, that Nancy Pelosi encourages allowing illegal immigrants to vote. 

The only substance they put out in support of the first part is a tweet by Dan Crenshaw, a congressman with an awesome eyepatch. He claims that HR1 (the bill in question) is good for the country, as it would "[reaffirm] that only US citizens should have the right to vote." However, in the tweet below, the same guy (unless there are two Dan Crenshaws in Congress wearing eyepatches) replied to a tweet by Joe Kennedy III (who basically stated the exact same thing as Crenshaw's first tweet, except that the GOP was UNIFIED in its opposition to HR1) saying, "You do realize your bill #HR1 would actually make that kind of fraud in #NC09 LEGAL. Right?TRUTH: it would legalize vote harvesting across the entire country, use your tax $ to do it, and limit free speech drastically. All in the name of “democracy.”Even ACLU opposes it."
His two tweets contradict each other. At the end of the day, I don't know whether or not the bill that the Democrats (and maybe the Republicans too) rejected was good or not, or whether what they did was right or not.

As for Nancy Pelosi, she never once stated "illegal immigrant" in her speech. All she said was:
So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been, our families.  Unless you are blessed to be Native American, which is a blessing in itself, which we respect.  But that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage to make the future better for the next generation – those are American traits – and these newcomers make America more American.  And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system and that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America. 
It is important to note that "newcomers" means all new immigrants. Furthermore, she clearly stated (in bold and italics) that she wants newcomers to be integrated into American society. This means granting immigrants legal citizenship. She also stated clearly in the video they posted in the blog that she wants comprehensive immigration reform, not an "open-gate" system that the site claimed she wanted.

I can't access this link. It gives me an Error 1020, which means it thinks I'm a DDoS bot, lol. 

as you will notice most accept a driver's licence as i.d.
States Offering Driver’s Licenses to Immigrants
huh looks like democrat states doesn't it......again the intent can't be denied and should be obvious to everyone.
According to immigrationdirect.com:
There are a handful of states that issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants:
  • Washington State
  • New Mexico
  • Utah (Not a driver’s license. Only a driving permit.)
  • Illinois
These states choose to provide undocumented immigrants with the right to drive legally because of safety issues. To get a driver’s license, applicants have to learn the rules of the roadways, pass driving tests, and before they start driving, get car insurance. Without driver’s licenses, undocumented immigrants drive without acquiring the proper knowledge and without insurance, and this makes the roads less safe for all drivers.

#45
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
You suggested multiple possible fixes to the current mail-in voting system to make it more secure:
Election security and integrity could be enhanced by ensuring:

  • Voter registration rolls are current with correct addresses. At a minimum, persons who have died or moved outside of the district should be removed from the rolls. 
  • Voters are asked to provide a valid signature and a photo ID whenever appropriate, upon registering to vote, and voting in-person or by mail.
  • Voters submit absentee and mail ballot requests in writing to ensure only registered voters receive ballots with signatures and photo IDs validated.
  • Partisan and campaign workers are prevented from harvesting and delivering ballots. A voter’s ballot should be treated as sacred and secret and generally should not be given to a third-party non-election official.
  • All persons registering to vote, voting in-person, and receiving absentee ballots should be notified that they are subject to perjury charges if they vote under false pretenses.
Why not go over those possible fixes and implement the ones that work instead of saying they "shouldn't be allowed"?
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
There's not a single Democrat that needs Trump to explain how to hold secure elections.

Not one. At all.

I remember reading somewhere that you usually don't change anything by waiting to elect the right person to do the right thing. The fastest and most efficient way is to get the wrong person to do the right thing.
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

― Milton Friedman



#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

You simplify laws from 2000 pages of legal gobbledygook to 2 pages of basic common sense so that they cannot be manipulated by politicians, judges, and their special interest cronies.  Second, you take away all the politicians' "pork power".  If they have no ability to give things away, they cannot be corrupt.  Why did Britain go from one of the most corrupt governments in the early 1800s to one of the least in the mid-1800s?  Because of the abolishment of the mercantilist Corn Laws and the adoption of pure free trade without tariffs or other protectionist measures.  There were simply no officials to bribe anymore.  This was also the period of greatest economic growth in Britain.  The two trends work in tandem.  
#49
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have readyaccess to citizenship documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyedresponded that they do not have ready access to U.S. passports, naturalization papers, orbirth certificates.2 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population,this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannoteasily produce documentation proving their citizenship.3

that's from your link, I stopped there since whatever questions they used seemed loaded, not to mention there is no reason as to why or if they could get the documents if they really wanted to etc.

I don't care what excuses they use to give law breakers driver's licenses because they are b.s. and I can't believe you would even try to pull that,  can you be trained or practice to do something without a license?  ffs how many people drive without one now?

regardless of all that you seemed to ignore what they are trying to do, their intent, of course they aren't going to make it obvious and they are going to do it a little at a time just like what they try to do with the 2a.
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
 or have internet access?  

More information you won't find on CNN.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Libs: Free voter enrollment when you collect a Driver's ID, even if you are an illegal invader.

Also libs: People don't have ID to vote.
#52
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
There's not a single Democrat that needs Trump to explain how to hold secure elections.

Not one. At all.
The Democrats aren't the ones trying to remove mail-in voting. Trump is.

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

― Milton Friedman
The majority of Americans favor having mail-in voting as an option, across the board. [1]
Given this, why would Trump say that mail-in voting needs to be removed? 
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
The Democrats aren't the ones trying to remove mail-in voting. Trump is.

They ARE the ones removing election safeguards. Trump is not. Trump has an issue with that.

The majority of Americans, across the board, favor having voter ID (90% Republican and 66% Democrat) as a way to secure the elections from interference, both foreign and domestic.
Given this, why would Democrats say voter protections should be removed?

#54
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
The majority of Americans, across the board, favor having voter ID (90% Republican and 66% Democrat) as a way to secure the elections from interference, both foreign and domestic.

Given this, why would Democrats say voter protections should be removed?
Notice something wrong with your statement?

#55
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's from your link, I stopped there since whatever questions they used seemed loaded
How so?

not to mention there is no reason as to why or if they could get the documents if they really wanted to etc
You don't know that.

can you be trained or practice to do something without a license?
I don't know what each state's driver's license programs are like, so I wouldn't be able to answer this conclusively.

ffs how many people drive without one now?
I'd imagine not very many.



#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Notice something wrong with your statement?

66% is a majority in favor. Why do you think it is not?

Democrats are trained to clap instead of compromise. They could have mail-in voting and amnesty for every illegal invader tomorrow if they only supported security for Americans. Why do the powers that be consistently take the position of anti-security? Seems pretty suspicious to an outsider.

#57
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Given this, why would Democrats say voter protections should be removed?
Here you say Democrats are against voter ID laws.

The majority of Americans, across the board, favor having voter ID (90% Republican and 66% Democrat) as a way to secure the elections from interference, both foreign and domestic.
Here you give a statistic saying that the majority of Democrats are for voter ID laws. 
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Here you say Democrats are against voter ID laws.

No it's a question. I know how hard it is to address questions. It goes against dogma and saves on the wear and tear of seal flippers.

#59
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
You asked me why Democrats would be against it. Asking me why they are against it implies that they are against it in the first place. 
#60
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
You asked me why Democrats would be against it. Asking me why they are against it implies that they are against it in the first place. 
Lmao when the Democratic Governor of North Carolina refuses to to sign a Voter ID law agreed upon by 55.5% to 45.5% it shows they’re against both the people and the law itself.

Ordinary people support Voter ID because it’s common sense. Democratic Party leaders know it will depress their votes because less illegals and dead people would be able to vote.