This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
You seem to be arguing for both sides warb I’m a bit confused.
I guess you haven’t been reading my posts.
Probably not, but I’m not gonna let that stop me from replying to individual things you’ve said out of context.
What things have I said out of context?
*sigh*
?
I guess you aren’t reading the stories I’ve been posting.
Not all of them, but I’m pretty sure I know what’s in them.
Lol.
I’ve heard it all before. There’s something about an old man born in the '20s who doesn’t have a birth certificate, something about students living out of state, and something about how it costs money to get an ID. I’ve heard it all before and I get the gist of it all. I don’t have time to read a bunch of stuff that I don’t care about. I just don’t think it’s unreasonable to have to show an ID to vote. I’m not even in favor of those laws, I just don’t think they’re unreasonable.
The Person in Question
I guess you aren’t reading the stories I’ve been posting.
Not all of them, but I’m pretty sure I know what’s in them.
Lol.
I’ve heard it all before. There’s something about an old man born in the '20s who doesn’t have a birth certificate, something about students living out of state, and something about how it costs money to get an ID. I’ve heard it all before and I get the gist of it all. I don’t have time to read a bunch of stuff that I don’t care about. I just don’t think it’s unreasonable to have to show an ID to vote.
I guess you don’t care if old men born in the 1920’s who don’t have a birth certificate can vote. I guess you don’t care if students who live out of state who it would cost too much money to get an ID, can vote. I guess you don’t care if all the other with difficulties getting ID can vote.
I’m not even in favor of those laws, I just don’t think they’re unreasonable.
If you don’t think the ID laws are unreasonable why aren’t you in favor of them?
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
How is that one person-A going to swing an election unless they’ve got all that info on more than person-b?
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.
Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration.
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
You have a point here. (However person A would not need to know person B’s voting intentions, only that he wasn’t going to vote)
How is that one person-A going to swing an election unless they’ve got all that info on more than person-b?
This is isn’t about swinging an election.
This is isn’t about swinging an election.
I thought that was the major concern/result of voter fraud?
This is isn’t about swinging an election.
I thought that was the major concern/result of voter fraud?
I don’t know what the major concern of others are, but me its the integrity of one person - one vote, and no one deciding what to do with someone else’s vote. I think the probability of such fraud swinging an election is rather remote, but voter fraud is still voter fraud. It is the principal that I care about. But again at moment, requiring ID seems to be unfair to the poor, minorities, and the elderly, so I am against it at the moment.
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
You have a point here. (However person A would not need to know person B’s voting intentions, only that he wasn’t going to vote)
If your intent was to change a persons vote from party-A to party-B, it could matter that you selected a target that wasn’t going to vote for party-B already. Otherwise you potentially aren’t a very effective election fraudster.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
IF IN FACT Trump Tower was wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign, as President Trump claimed in several tweets Saturday morning, he can do much more than say so on twitter: Presidents have the power to declassify anything at any time, so Trump could immediately make public any government records of such surveillance.
The most likely explanation is that there was never any wiretapping of Trump Tower – or as Trump put it in another tweet, “my phones” — but the FISA court did allow surveillance of the Philadelphia server and the Justice Department ultimately decided there was nothing to it.
Or perhaps the Justice Department decided there was something to it and is still investigating it.
Or perhaps there were FISA court warrants but for surveillance of people around Trump that had nothing to do with the Philadelphia server and the Russian bank.
Or perhaps Trump never read the Breitbart article but instead learned there was significant surveillance of Trump Tower in the way you’d expect a president would, from the massive intelligence apparatus he commands.
Or perhaps Trump has simply gotten all of this wrong.
Whatever the case, Trump has the power to clarify it and everything else about the Russia story right now by declassifying whatever surveillance records exist of contacts between people in his orbit and Russia. If he and his associates did nothing wrong, he has every incentive to do so as soon as possible.
The new ‘travel ban’ order is out: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
“Protecting the Nation”
What a joke. His own DHS told him that almost all these terrorists are home-grown.
“Protecting the Nation”
What a joke. His own DHS told him that almost all these terrorists are home-grown.
I agree.
also, “Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection” reads like some terrible propaganda machine. yes, let’s further entrench bias and cause more division between people by reporting on only the bad things done by foreigners. only foreigners.
Is this gonna be struck down by the courts as well?
The new order drew condemnation from immigrant rights advocates.
“The president has said he would ban Muslims, and this revised version — in these preliminary fact sheets — still does that, even if they have removed Iraq from the list,” said Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “In its oral argument before the 9th Circuit, the government was unable to provide any evidence to the 9th Circuit that acts of terrorism had been committed by the nationals of seven countries initially designated. That was an embarrassment, but now weeks later, in these preliminary fact sheets, they still have not explained why people from these countries pose risk to America’s national security.”
“Protecting the Nation”
What a joke. His own DHS told him that almost all these terrorists are home-grown.
I agree.
also, “Sec. 11. Transparency and Data Collection” reads like some terrible propaganda machine. yes, let’s further entrench bias and cause more division between people by reporting on only the bad things done by foreigners. only foreigners.
Only foreigners do bad things. America first!
I guess you aren’t reading the stories I’ve been posting.
Not all of them, but I’m pretty sure I know what’s in them.
Lol.
I’ve heard it all before. There’s something about an old man born in the '20s who doesn’t have a birth certificate, something about students living out of state, and something about how it costs money to get an ID. I’ve heard it all before and I get the gist of it all. I don’t have time to read a bunch of stuff that I don’t care about. I just don’t think it’s unreasonable to have to show an ID to vote.
I guess you don’t care if old men born in the 1920’s who don’t have a birth certificate can vote. I guess you don’t care if students who live out of state who it would cost too much money to get an ID, can vote. I guess you don’t care if all the other with difficulties getting ID can vote.
I’m not even in favor of those laws, I just don’t think they’re unreasonable.
If you don’t think the ID laws are unreasonable why aren’t you in favor of them?
Yeah, of course. That’s always the answer, right? “You don’t care. You’re mean. You hate people.” No. I was also saying that while having absolutely no important documents makes it a longer process to get a photo ID, it still isn’t impossible, and since you should really have copies of those documents anyway it’d be a good idea for them to get them.
The Person in Question
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
You have a point here. (However person A would not need to know person B’s voting intentions, only that he wasn’t going to vote)
If your intent was to change a persons vote from party-A to party-B, it could matter that you selected a target that wasn’t going to vote for party-B already. Otherwise you potentially aren’t a very effective election fraudster.
The party thing would only matter in primaries, not general elections.
I guess you aren’t reading the stories I’ve been posting.
Not all of them, but I’m pretty sure I know what’s in them.
Lol.
I’ve heard it all before. There’s something about an old man born in the '20s who doesn’t have a birth certificate, something about students living out of state, and something about how it costs money to get an ID. I’ve heard it all before and I get the gist of it all. I don’t have time to read a bunch of stuff that I don’t care about. I just don’t think it’s unreasonable to have to show an ID to vote.
I guess you don’t care if old men born in the 1920’s who don’t have a birth certificate can vote. I guess you don’t care if students who live out of state who it would cost too much money to get an ID, can vote. I guess you don’t care if all the other with difficulties getting ID can vote.
I’m not even in favor of those laws, I just don’t think they’re unreasonable.
If you don’t think the ID laws are unreasonable why aren’t you in favor of them?
Yeah, of course. That’s always the answer, right? “You don’t care. You’re mean. You hate people.”
That is the way your previous post read.
btw, if you care, why did you dismiss the stories Frink listed without even reading them?
No. I was also saying that while having absolutely no important documents makes it a longer process to get a photo ID, it still isn’t impossible, and since you should really have copies of those documents anyway it’d be a good idea for them to get them.
The process can be more than longer, it can be costlier. The question isn’t whether it is possible or not. The question is, is the process too hard and/or too costly for poor, minorities, and elder to make it a requirement in order to vote? Is process so hard and so costly to some people, that to make it a requirement to vote is violation of their Constitutional rights. Apparently, you don’t think it is all that important to find out whether or not this is the case. You don’t seem to worried about making this fair to the poor, minorities, elder, and etc. At least is my take from your posts and your attitude on the subject.
btw, you didn’t answer if:
I just don’t think they’re unreasonable.
why this?
I’m not even in favor of those laws,
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
You have a point here. (However person A would not need to know person B’s voting intentions, only that he wasn’t going to vote)
If your intent was to change a persons vote from party-A to party-B, it could matter that you selected a target that wasn’t going to vote for party-B already. Otherwise you potentially aren’t a very effective election fraudster.
The party thing would only matter in primaries, not general elections.
It wouldn’t?
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Nice try, no chance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/planned-parenthood.html
The White House, concerned about the possible political repercussions of the Republican effort to defund Planned Parenthood, has proposed preserving federal payments to the group if it discontinues providing abortions.
The proposal, which was never made formally, has been rejected as an impossibility by officials at Planned Parenthood, which receives about $500 million annually in federal funding. That money helps pay for women’s health services the organization provides, not for abortion services.
“Let’s be clear, federal funds already do not pay for abortions,” Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said on Monday. “Offering money to Planned Parenthood to abandon our patients and our values is not a deal that we will ever accept. Providing critical health care services for millions of American women is nonnegotiable.”
This last bit is particularly galling.
In private discussions with people close to Planned Parenthood, White House officials have at times suggested that there could even be an increase in federal earmarks if the work related to abortion ends.
Never mind all he managed to do was stick to the speech that was written for him, is one day now considered a week?
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/greg-gutfeld-monologue-trump-most-presidential-week-yet
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
You have a point here. (However person A would not need to know person B’s voting intentions, only that he wasn’t going to vote)
If your intent was to change a persons vote from party-A to party-B, it could matter that you selected a target that wasn’t going to vote for party-B already. Otherwise you potentially aren’t a very effective election fraudster.
The party thing would only matter in primaries, not general elections.
It wouldn’t?
Not in general elections. It does matter in the primaries, when you are voting to decide which candidate will represent the party in the general election, but it doesn’t matter in the general election.
Okay. I will try one more time
Let us say there are 2 people. Person A and person B. They are registered in different polling places. Now, lets say person B for whatever doesn’t vote. What is to stop person A from going to his own polling place, vote and then going to person B’s polling place and lie and say he was person B and then vote again? Without requiring IDs, what is to stop that? How would person A get caught?
As I’ve already said… nothing.
If person-A knew person-B’s name, knew with certainty that they were not going to vote, knew at what polling station they were registered to vote, knew what their voting intentions were and knew that person-B was not known to the officials at the polling station (not unlikely in my experience)… then yeah they could commit the perfect crime and nobody would know.
You have a point here. (However person A would not need to know person B’s voting intentions, only that he wasn’t going to vote)
If your intent was to change a persons vote from party-A to party-B, it could matter that you selected a target that wasn’t going to vote for party-B already. Otherwise you potentially aren’t a very effective election fraudster.
The party thing would only matter in primaries, not general elections.
It wouldn’t?
Not in general elections. It does matter in the primaries, when you are voting to decide which candidate will represent the party in the general election, but it doesn’t matter in the general election.
You have it backwards, because you said “the party thing would only matter in primaries, not general elections.”
Regardless, Ryan is not from the US and I’m not sure how his party system works, but he could have just said “if your intent was to change a person’s vote from person-A to person-B, it could matter that you selected a target that wasn’t going to vote for person-B already. Otherwise you potentially aren’t a very effective election fraudster.”
Ryan is not from the US and I’m not sure how his party system works
To put it as simply as I can… In a UK General Election. We just vote for our local MP. The Party with the most MPs wins and must form a government*. We don’t directly vote for the Prime-Minister.
Which is why I used the word “Party” in my example. I think we all understand what I was saying.
(* Technically, the two (or more) biggest losing parties could also form a coalition government, if the winning party’s victory was so feeble that they were unable to form one)
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.