All this voting, transgender, gun right bullshit is LITERALLY man made, manufactured anger towards stuff that ISN’T an issue, problem, or even a situation that should warrant attention by the right.
The right produces bullshit stories, then proceed to make their base mad over stuff that isn’t actually an issue while the higher up Republicans f*** everyone over when no one’s looking.
Yeah? What kind of bullshit stories does the left come up with? A war in Ukraine? A tax evading, rapist, lying former president? Gas price gouging bill votes? Voting down more military veteran support? (Ok sorry that one is actually what the right did, hopefully you guys can keep up with sarcasm)
Or pulling out of peaceful global treaties? Or denying citizens the right to vote? Or creating laws meant to suppress the American public? Those are all real issues the right does tackles incorrectly.
Thanks. You’re correct in agreeing with me that the right is a bunch of fascist, lying grifters. The majority of the world agrees as well. Being loud, obnoxious, and narcissistic is not a trait well received by many.
What does this have to do with "the right"? There are many countries where electronic voting isn't done because of the same reasonable concerns, some with left wing governments. Are you going to claim the progressives in Taiwan are right wing? Finland tried introducing electronic voting in 2008 but it was stuck down by their supreme court and the elections where they'd used the machines were declared void and had to be repeated, after inconsistencies had been found.
Also you simply have to search for "US voting machines hacked" and similar search terms and you'll find plenty of evidence of manipulation, machines that were supposed to have no internet connection but found to be online, etc. If you're pro democracy but aren't concerned about the security of the voting process, which is the most essential element of democratic systems of all, that's simply idiotic. Someone who care about preventing autocracy would make sure the votes are as secure from being manipulated as possible. Which is why there are plenty of places that do hand counting of paper ballots only. No machines.
I will say the biden ATF has been pretty wild, but you would have to be a gun enthusiast to know. They have unconstitutionally declared many parts illegal that were previously legal and without any legislative changes.
Transgender issues seem to remain state issues but the executive branch puts out opinions so its fair to attack them on cultural topics.
Voting is another state issue, but with the influx of illegal migration and many states lacking voter ID remains a topic of discussion. Its likely more a border issue than a voting one.
How was the ATF action unconstitutional. Honest question.
You don’t need voter ID to keep immigrants from voting. If they tried to vote in any significant numbers the current system would detect it.
>How was the ATF action unconstitutional. Honest question.
I was going to dive into sources but ill give you content instead to research.
Pistol brace rule is in injunction i believe for being unconstitutional
Frames and receiver rule unconstitutional
Machine gun rule (forced reset triggers) is a redefinition of existing legislation and unconstitutional.
The latest gun dealer rule will likely be unconstitutional.
Litigation unfortunately is slow.
Depends on the court i guess. Some courts say yes and then the ATF pushes it to a higher court and here we are.
So they are labeled unconstitutional and pending further judgment.
It is a grey area but not unconstitutional by any means. The POTUS has the power to enforce the laws, including defining laws and regulations. The SCOTUS can check that power if a case before it is determined to be in conflict such as the second amendment. The actions of the POTUS weren't unconstitutional. The definition or the POTUS interpretation was wrong.
So yes the POTUS can define it. The SCOTUS can determine it to be unconstitutional. But not the action of the POTUS.
>POTUS has the power to enforce the laws
Yes
>defining laws
This is congress
>defining regulations
Yes, based on the laws
>The SCOTUS can check that power if a case before it is determined to be in conflict such as the second amendment.
The SCOTUS checks the congress for violations made by legislation. The SCOTUS checks the executive for not following legislation through regulation.
This case is the latter.
>The actions of the POTUS weren't unconstitutional. The definition or the POTUS interpretation was wrong
If constitutional authority only grants the executive office to regulate law and they exceed that, by attempting to create law out of whole cloth, it seems unconstitutional to me but it may be pedantic in the words used (exceeded authority)
Regardless, the executive is wrong in redefining a machine gun that does not follow the definition as put forth by congress.
I'll let you read this it might help you understand. The constitution is not a stone document that doesn't change.
https://www.thepolicycircle.org/brief/the-executive-branch/
I dont see how that changes anything. I took a few govt courses in my time and have done plenty of studying outside of school.
Congress has given power to the executive to allow executive orders to change, for example, environmental regulations.
>The constitution is not a stone document that doesn't change
The constitution is quite solid with only a few dozen amendments. Congress is free to give up some power to the executive, though to our long term detriment likely.
First, I'm referring to the fact he once said, and I quote to take the guns first and due process later.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/trumps-mixed-record-on-gun-control/
To be blunt, the man who says he would take your guns and ignore the constitution is just better than the man who believes in following the law. SMH. Your math doesn't add up.
Trump says a lot of dumb shit. He doesnt follow through most of it. We had 4 years to reflect and compare to the current administration.
In the 4 years he signed the bump stock ban (bad).
In the 3 years of biden the ATF has changed rules regarding pistol braces, forced reset triggers, frames and receivers, been more aggressive with lawful citizens, and has shut down many gun FFLs for small clerical errors. His rhetoric continues against AR15s and pushing for another AWB in congress.
The contrast is quite clear to us ammosexuals.
Trump is the first POTUS in US history to refuse to accept that he lost an election. The first to allow an orderly transfer of power. He is supported by a group who believes in project 2025, a Christian nationalist agenda to remove democracy. His supporters don't just want to change policy. They want to tear down the government. Your guns won't matter unless you plan to jackpot alongside.
Quite a change of subject, but ill argue the points i guess.
>Trump is the first POTUS in US history to refuse to accept that he lost an election. The first to allow an orderly transfer of power
Im guessing you meant unorderly, yet he did peacefully transfer power and biden became president on jan 20. There was no uprising. He didnt tell people to go get their guns and stop the certification.
>He is supported by a group who believes in project 2025, a Christian nationalist agenda to remove democracy.
From what ive read, project 2025 is an extreme take on executive agency power. All that power congress has given to the president over time as we discussed in the other thread.
>His supporters don't just want to change policy. They want to tear down the government.
I think that's a bit extreme. Project 2025 would work within current laws, thats the point.
>Your guns won't matter unless you plan to jackpot alongside.
With things like project 2025 as you believe it to be you should be happy someone is defending your gun rights.
Got anything that’s not from the 5th circuit of MAGA crazies? you realize how many of their rulings get struck down? The SCOTUS already stayed that decision. 😂😂😂 want to try again?
I think the point being made is that if it wasn’t for conservative media trying to generate clicks, none of the culture war nonsense would have any impact on anyone’s lives.
How do you blame a culture war on a single side? Its left vs right culture issues and you can see state policies which reflect that.
When the executive branch or federal government decides to speak on them it becomes nationwide. Dont be mad at the right for calling it out.
Chicken v. Egg.
There would be no need for the federal government or executive branch to speak on them if right wing media didn’t foment the outrage in the first place.
Or is the executive branch speaking on them the reactionary response to right states policies?
We could dig to find who started it first. I would assume it started with bathroom bills but that feels so long ago at this point.
In the end its irrelevant i suppose.
There’s only one side that is actively seeking to limit freedoms, and it’s the right. That’s why I blame a culture war on one side. I saw a car yesterday with a bumper sticker that just said ‘NO - to Democrats’
I mean really, how does anyone choose to believe in a side whose only actual policy is ‘just say no to everything’???
>There’s only one side that is actively seeking to limit freedoms, and it’s the right
This hyperbolic talk isnt productive. The left tries to ban guns frequently.
>That’s why I blame a culture war on one side.
Obviously there are 2 sides to every argument. When the right says they dont want trans people competing in womens sports this is why.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1779379046448595157?t=7HnZsc9ncIz21YRPszCanw&s=19
> I saw a car yesterday with a bumper sticker that just said ‘NO - to Democrats’
And?
>I mean really, how does anyone choose to believe in a side whose only actual policy is ‘just say no to everything’???
Wow, I saw an "f trump" bumper sticker. Let me apply that as a policy to the whole democrat party and ask how anyone believes in that policy.
Like honestly, wtf...
Uh... what? :o
I literally don't see anyone trying to culture war anything unless they're glued to a tv screen 24/7, with fox going hard? I'm not trying to string ya one here, but... I just don't? I've seen a few anomalies here and there, but the answer for that stuff wasn't even culture war.
There was nuance where I wondered and wandered. That said, I trend purple, chasing sense and sound solutions to the matters that I've experienced and investigated myself. What'd you get your eyes on?
I dont watch fox but i do consume media from the right as well as central and i will listen to left as well to get perspectives.
I would probably consider myself informed and politically active which is a very small portion of the population. Most people dont listen to shows daily.
I would say the debate on whether or not to allow minors to transition is a fairly big culture war. Comparing policies from florida and WA or NY give you perspectives for each side as well as rhetoric from prominent figures such as biden or governors of red states.
How is that not a culture war in your eyes?
>How is that not a culture war in your eyes?
I'll answer this through how I view matters like it.
>whether or not to allow minors to transition
**Where I fall on this:** I'm actually undecided on this myself - I don't consider that a matter of culture though. I consider it a matter to debate in medical circles because the latest I've read suggests "Trans" has turned out to be visible in ways I hadn't thought it'd be. Neurological ways. It turned out to be more than mere claim.
And I'm not Trans.
It means that I *can't* live what they experience. That my understanding of what they face will forever be removed from their lived experience. So... I am *not* in my view the person who ought to be dictating a decision that doesn't affect me, but could affect them.
I'm leaving that where I think it ought to be - with those who actively research, study, and stew in such outside of the court of public opinion, for if my conversations with a virologist during covid have taught me anything, it's that even though I know a LOT, those with phd's in a matter know a whole world more than I, and often, they know the nuances of that world too. We see a tree? They know the grooves in its bark. That's the sort of person I'd want in charge of a hot button anything like that - those with the most complete understandings of it possible in any given day and age.
And, no disrespect, but I doubt that is either of us? :o
...
**Political considerations:** It is also, unfortunately, not going to be possible to convince many that the Republican politicians making some of those choices in some of those states understand it either, as far as I've been able to figure out, they are *not* following the advisings of experts in and around such. Jon Stewart actually interviewed one of them, which... might be the best angle into that you could get expediently, as it came up during the matter.
Worse, Covid saw the act of demonizing ones doctors turned into a talking point and a badge of merit. And sadly, a large and very loud part of the "it's a hoax" people relied on that, in fact, with proponents inventing false accusations of medical malpractice to explain away the deaths that covid caused. They did the same of news sources during this time as well. This is a huge blast to credibility around such matters for the right wing, and even righties who had more good sense than to believe DJT are quickly lumped in with those who didn't in the aftermath of the first wave.
In the same breath, Ron DeSantis was nominated, and a lot of people (myself included) discovered a slew of right wing comics online not satiring, but bullying Trans people, after punching his rhetoric into a search engine. For many, his presence on the podium was little different from giving that a national platform. I'm inclined to agree with that as well, and still utterly confused about what people seem to think that "woke" is. (Though it certainly didn't help that the times I was accused of being "woke" often paired to the recounting of genuinely real and relevant stories from firsthand sources. Stories that were... let's say "less than convenient" for the claimed causes of those who accused me of such. It's really made that term a foggy one.)
As such, *republicans may have more trouble being seen as acting in good faith around such matters, and often need to try doubly hard to prove that they're earnest before a real conversation on this can begin.* It's a mix of bad optics and actions that led to that, sadly.
**My opinion:** (added this late - forgot to include) I for one have seen enough kids take to enough fads to know there can be a social aspect to this for some, even though, to be certain, being trans is NOT like being goth. There's a grain of truth to the notion that some will identify with a group to fit in if they see it all around then, but... while I've seen people teeter back and forth on whether they feel one way or another while hanging out with furballs on VRC, trans is a very small % of the population, and actually transitioning is *not* a requirement to identify as such.
I do believe it's worth considering though, if strictly because in the digital age I've managed to find a high concentration of trans individuals, and I imagine that means others could as well. Of note though, those who push questionable opinions on others do appear to be very rare. In maybe 1000+ Trans folk, only I've only ever come across two like this, and they were soundly shouted down for it by all present (mostly LGBTQ+ folks) both times.
I do wonder what kinds of lasting consequences there might be for someone who began a process like this young, only to be unable to afford to keep up with the treatments later in life. It might not be a wise thing to do in an uncertain world, but... neither is firing yourself from a giant slingshot I guess, and I've done that. (Thankfully, it did not end up being... life altering)
So I have to question whether that's a reasonable post to hold onto.
...
**Follow up Question:** now that you know how I view this, a follow up question for you. *Why does that need to be about culture? I still don't understand the notion that it has to be, but I'd like to see your angle.*
>"Trans" has turned out to be visible in ways I hadn't thought it'd be. Neurological ways. It turned out to be more than mere claim.
The data suggests most minors will outgrow it though. How can it be both?
>I'm leaving that where I think it ought to be - with those who actively research, study, and stew in such outside of the court of public opinion, for if my conversations with a virologist during covid have taught me anything, it's that even though I know a LOT, those with phd's in a matter know a whole world more than I, and often, they know the nuances of that world too.
I think studies are just that. They shouldnt be based on opinions but rather the inverse. It should be used as a part of formulated policies. I can read studies and understand enough to make informed opinions on topics.
>That's the sort of person I'd want in charge of a hot button anything like that - those with the most complete understandings of it possible in any given day and age.
We have never had it that way. We dont put climatologists in charge of all policy on climate. There are many political considerations. Military jets for example probably pollute a lot. We dont hamstring the military for climate.
>Why does that need to be about culture? I still don't understand the notion that it has to be, but I'd like to see your angle.
Like most things, the law reflects the culture. Slavery, gay marriage, etc. The culture had to change before the law. For the modern trans debate it kinda changed where laws came faster than culture adjustment. It has led to more division and now trenches are drawn. I suppose slavery may have been similar but it was a divided culture of north vs south.
>I think studies are just that. They shouldnt be based on opinions but rather the inverse. It should be used as a part of formulated policies. I can read studies and understand enough to make informed opinions on topics.
I too would love to see policies made around the empirical more often than the intangible or ideological. But I suppose people need a reason to hone in on one thing over another. Opinions can be good in that regard, as the nudge, but if it's be explored before it hit political stages... I suppose such a thing might be less exposed to tribal ebb and flow.
I dream about that, cutting through the fluff...
>We have never had it that way. We dont put climatologists in charge of all policy on climate.
Of course, they won't always know how doing x will effect everything in disciplines beyond their expertise. It's why a varied but experienced team would be the ideal in a climate debate for sure. But around matters medical... If various disciplines can reach a consensus here, I'd struggle to understand why heeding would be being viewed as unwise.
What's more, if there exists this discrepancy, one would think that there might be a way to measure it, in time.
Not now though for sure. As a lot of our most advanced ideas about the body and brain are evidence based yes, but still our "best guess" in some cases. And even now, though they do try to avoid this risk from what I recall, the screening process isn't perfect... but no such process ever is. Not even background checks for firearms.
I truly folk will be as careful as they can legally be. Obviously nobody's about to summon every voice chat anyone ever had online, but as someone who's been pressured by a creep (all groups have some) who wanted my heterosexual ass to do somethin' pretty damn gay, I'd at least encourage them to be sure that it isn't being pushed on them. That happening is rarer than the bullies shouting claim it is, but it *can*, and it has. A small number may not be great cause for panic, but it's worth acknowledging.
>Military jets for example probably pollute a lot.
Long ago I heard some interesting stories about mileage boosts when military engines were stuck into civilian models Humvees... but despite knowing some really strange shit, I never had the connections to verify whether that one was bogus or not. Per emissions, I think militaries overall were roughly 5%? But... that 5% is often viewed as between us an awful fate, so I won't blame folk for ignoring that sector, much as I truly do hope we innovate before it's too late.
Similarly though... the earth warming up could do us all a lot worse than folk want to believe in tbh. I think both people and the military eggheads know that one. So I won't blame folk for seeing it as a tricky call, in some places, in some cases...
>The data suggests most minors will outgrow it
At a skim of the mention, it's easy for me to wonder if this pokes at the mentioned difference between the "it's a phase" ones and the "it is me" ones. I've met both, after all, teeterers and sold-stone assured. But alas, I'm not familiar with the study you mention, so I oughta give that a poke first I think. Ty for mentioning it. :)
>the law reflects the culture. Slavery, gay marriage, etc.
This is an excellent description, and it is helping me see what you mean here. I guess what you're saying is, information gradually shifted attitudes around the matter, which eventually helped to prime the whole to better accept it.
>For the modern trans debate it kinda changed where laws came faster than culture adjustment. It has led to more division and now trenches are drawn.
I get what you mean around this actually. Though I'd suggest that there's a certain noisy sect of the community that has *massively* overreached, and I actually view an amount of the conservative pushback as a good thing in that respect. They pump the brakes it seems until society is "more ready." And as you note, there's something to be said for doing that.
What I think happened here, is that there was a certain sort of vitriol exchanged around the first two letters. The L's and the G's, that went over *very* badly, and inclined folk to see the less progressive brake pumpers as "being the bad guys." Which they're usually not. Conservatives who pump the brakes aren't typically ultra regressive or cruelly ruthless... or nakedly embracing such a flavor of corruption. They're even quite thoughtful at times.
I don't really get why you caught a downvote for this. I do hope there's someone who would explain their choice without being a cock about it when they do, since I'm actually enjoying your words. Thank you for taking the time?
Non-citizens can not vote in any national elections. But in some places, they can vote in local elections. Such as school boards, judges, mayors, etc. Republicans are scared that Trump is going to get blown out, so they have to create fake outrage.
- Can't talk about the border: They voted against their own border bill
- Can't talk about Transgenderism: They tried that in 2022 for the "red wave" and it came out to a trickle
- Can't talk about gas prices: Gas prices can be explained by Ukraine and the fact that Biden has pumped more oil than any other time in American history.
- Can't talk about lack of jobs: Republicans voted against Bidens infrastructure package and are now trying to take credit for the infrastructure projects in their districts and are getting called out for the flip-floping on social media.
The GOP can't talk about Hunter Biden anymore because they have yet to do anything with the Laptop they failed to get into the hands of law enforcement before several high ranking Republicans got to it and any evidence they find, can easily be explained by saying, "Republicans added that evidence", same with that Biden family diary.
Trump has lost women due to abortion. Lost independents due to wanting to pull out of NATO. Lost about 10-15% of Republican voters, if they're willing to vote Nikki Haley in the primary, they're willing to vote Biden in the general. MAGA is panicking.
No. But Republicans have not been truthful since Ford. They are masters of the grift and know what their dribbling throngs need. They are all too happy to shovel it to them in heaping mounds.
Can they yes, can they legally no.
Without a doubt especially with as much identity theft as there is out there and how many illegals in the past or non-citizens if you prefer but back then they were illegals have taken IDs of citizens past or present and use them. There is no doubt whatsoever that they could vote for president with these said identities. They are available for a price and I'm sure that some do use them whether they bother to use them to vote, probably not for at least the vast majority of them, but is it possible without a doubt there are many that do things that are against the law.
Within the confines of the law of the United States no they are not supposed to, that does not mean that they are not able to especially and I could see a lot of them getting confused in some of these places where they're trying to push that illegals or non-citizens should be able to vote for local elections. This is one confusing step away from being able to vote in federal elections and in places where they have that if it is enacted anywhere or places where they do in that that ability I could easily see illegals trying to vote because they think they are allowed to.
The entire voter fraud thing is a joke. It's playing well for those who refuse to listen to others. Those who have no new experiences or knowledge. Some adults enter into a stage of regression ideologically where nothing new or different can be allowed, and only the already accepted ideas can be reinforced.
Anyone who tells you non-citizens can vote in presidential election is lying to your face because they think you are too stupid to know better, and they can lie to you with impunity.
\*thinks for 2 seconds\*
You mean like politicians and the press lying straight to the US citizens face because the sad fact is MOST of them are that stupid.
“…and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity….”
They meant for THEIR descendants, not the drug dealers, traffickers, rapists, murderers and all such beings.
I honestly don't know why they shouldn't be able to vote. Anyone who lives here has a stake in the country. Literate minors in school should be able to vote, too. They aren't less informed than the majority of adults.
It is illegal for non citizens to vote in FEDERAL elections. However we know the law doesnt stop things from happening and without voter ID its impossible to confirm identities at the polls. A person (citizen or not) in California could register under a stolen identity and show up to any polling place to vote saying they are that person. There is no way to verify identity.
In theory, one could attempt to register stolen identities and then use those identities to vote at various polling places undetected.
Its not a far reach, when act blue was falsely using small donors names to make large donations, to assume something could be done at a larger scale.
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-demands-answers-from-fec-on-potential-actblue-fraudulent-donations/
>>The District of Columbia and municipalities in three states allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of March 2024: California, Maryland, and Vermont.
>>https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States
>>According to the Pew Research Center, there were over 25 million noncitizens living in the U.S. as of 2020. That included approximately 12 million permanent residents and 2 million temporary residents who were in the country with legal permission, as well as approximately 11 million immigrants who resided in the country without legal permission.[3
You’re lying when you say there’s “no way to know.” This has been studied extensively. We have a very very good idea about how much voter fraud there is - we’ve never been able to turn up numbers that are greater than the margin of error.
Im honestly not sure how you verify there is virtually no voter fraud when you lack the tools to even detect it.
Its like blinding yourself and then saying you cant see it so its not happening.
Without voter ID, you dont know if a registered voter is who they say they are. You cannot know because you are not checking.
Saying it doesnt exist seems foolish to me.
We do have voter ID. You have to register to vote and your name is checked against is registry when you go to vote.
The worst someone could pull off is voting in someone else’s name, which would only succeed if that person didn’t vote themselves.
It seems like you don’t actually know that much about the process or how we track it, but are presenting it as if you do.
>We do have voter ID. You have to register to vote and your name is checked against is registry when you go to vote
Idk if you intentionally are ignoring what voter id means but here is a source to debunk your claim.
>>The remaining 16 states did not require voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day.
>>https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
>The worst someone could pull off is voting in someone else’s name, which would only succeed if that person didn’t vote themselves
On average about 61% of the population votes. That leaves 39% (thats 100 million US adults) of people who dont. It wouldnt be difficult to find unregistered identities (considering how many people get their ssns stolen) and vote in their name.
>>https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html
The point is, how do you know if you lack the tools to know? Its facetious to claim otherwise.
>It seems like you don’t actually know that much about the process or how we track it, but are presenting it as if you do.
You didnt even describe voter id correctly and you are saying i am uninformed?
And I absolutely did describe voter ID correctly. The fact that they don’t require you to present the card is irrelevant if they’re checking the register. You’re far fetched scheme in which people suss out non-voters who are register in order to vote in their place would take so much coordination that it would leave a massive paper trail. How do they ensure those people don’t vote themselves? How do they find them in the first place? What if they decided to vote last minute?
All of this would be mandatory to pull off the type of fraud you’re theorizing (baselessly, I might add). “Oh well it could happen and we lack the tools to know if it is” is magical thinking. It’s “there might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky and we just don’t have the tools to see him” caliber stuff. We do have the tools. We’ve monitored this stuff extensively. We’ve audited contentious elections - we’ve never once turned up anything greater than the margin of error in even the most exhaustive audits.
So yes - you’re either uninformed or deliberately lying
>would take so much coordination that it would leave a massive paper trail. How do they ensure those people don’t vote themselves? How do they find them in the first place? What if they decided to vote last minute?
Addresses and names are public record. There are plenty of black market sites to find other identifying information like SSNs and passwords and emails.
A basic program can find and link the two then you have all the info you need to register under their name which can also be automated.
States have websites to check to see if you are registered and so a person may check if their victim is registered and avoid that vote.
Then you show up, lie about your identity, and vote.
Wow that took me 2 seconds to imagine how hard would it be for a motivated small group to conspire?
If they’re not regulated then they wouldn’t be able to vote in their name. You’re not even trying to keep your paranoia consistent now. There’s no state that allows you to vote without being registered. The best you could do is hope to impersonate someone who is that isn’t going to vote.
Every state requires you to present some form of ID to register. What you’re talking about would be essentially full on identify theft, a process so complicated it would not be worth the ultimately negligible outcome. This is what I’m saying - you’re presenting as a straw man problem something that not only is there no evidence of, there’s no clear incentive. In order for this to have any effect on elections it would need to be coordinated on a scale that would be impossible to miss.
We do have the tools. Once again - you’re presenting supposition as if it’s fact, ignoring the actual data. You’re cherry picking quotes to try to prove a point that is beyond disproven.
Please explain or cite the tools that allow us to identify if a vote cast, by a person in a state without voter id, is cast by the person who they say they are.
Thats the whole point of voter id and 16 states dont require it.
Do you think they just say “hi, go on and vote” when you show up to vote in those states lol. No. They’re asking who you are, and checking it against the voting register. Just because you can imagine a scenario doesn’t make it a valid threat.
>No. They’re asking who you are, and checking it against the voting register. Just because you can imagine a scenario doesn’t make it a valid threat.
Nobody has ever lied or committed fraud before. If people are willing to commit financial fraud why wouldnt they commit political fraud?
I honestly cannot understand defending no-id voting laws. Its the most basic check possible and would make people like me less skeptical.
So you think illegal immigrants are going to commit in person voter fraud to vote without knowing whether the person they’re impersonating plans to vote? That’s one helluva gamble considering how easily they’d be convicted if they were wrong.
If they succeed, they’d change exactly one vote. To commit in person voter fraud to the degree it would take to move an election isn’t possible under the current system. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. Unnecessary requirements just reduce voter turnout
I mean I doubt it will since he’s not won a popular vote yet, but even if he does, I would have no reason to think voter fraud pushed him over the edge unless there’s actual evidence of it.
So please explain how does someone vote using a stolen identity.
I would be shocked if a non-citizen tried to vote. If caught, they would go to jail for a while and then get deported. Why would they do it?
I explained above
>>without voter ID its impossible to confirm identities at the polls. A person (citizen or not) in California could register under a stolen identity and show up to any polling place to vote saying they are that person. There is no way to verify identity.
You ever work as an election judge? You do have to provide some information about yourself. A dark skinned 30 year old man speaking poor English with a heavy Spanish accent probably would have trouble posing as 75 year old Joseph Bronski.
In the mean time we should also build sanctuaries to protect unicorns, stop sending foreign aid to place like Saturn and Jupiter, give halflings and gnome voting rights and we really should look into doing some about the dragons terrorizing the residents in Alaska.
Lets just go all out passing bills to stop things from happening that aren't actually happening.
Great let's pass my suggested bills as well. Since obviously non of what I suggested is actually happening no one should have a problem with passing those bills.
We’re talking about presidential elections, not local elections.
States that require no photo ID still have lists of eligible voters at polling places, requiring a signature next to your name to vote. Many require a nonphoto voter ID or a postcard you receive in the mail with your name on it. A non-citizen would have to pretend to be a citizen in that district and forge their signature on the line to vote, which carries criminal penalty if caught and most won’t risk deportation over that.
And for states that let these people get drivers’ licenses, they still don’t show up as eligible voters at the polling places.
So no, what you said here is a myth.
I live in a no ID state and have never signed my name to vote. My last name is difficult to spell and last time I should my ID because she could not find my name her words were "I am not allowed to look at that"
For example, in CA an illegal immigrant can get a driver's license. They then use that to register to vote. They're not supposed to, but hey, whatever they can do to keep the gravy train rolling, you know?
All this voting, transgender, gun right bullshit is LITERALLY man made, manufactured anger towards stuff that ISN’T an issue, problem, or even a situation that should warrant attention by the right. The right produces bullshit stories, then proceed to make their base mad over stuff that isn’t actually an issue while the higher up Republicans f*** everyone over when no one’s looking.
Omg ‘member the CRT hysteria? Made up outrage.
Smart evil people literally using dumb evil people. A story as old as time itself….
thats not exclusive to the right wing
Yeah? What kind of bullshit stories does the left come up with? A war in Ukraine? A tax evading, rapist, lying former president? Gas price gouging bill votes? Voting down more military veteran support? (Ok sorry that one is actually what the right did, hopefully you guys can keep up with sarcasm) Or pulling out of peaceful global treaties? Or denying citizens the right to vote? Or creating laws meant to suppress the American public? Those are all real issues the right does tackles incorrectly.
actually.....yeah all of those! good job
Thanks. You’re correct in agreeing with me that the right is a bunch of fascist, lying grifters. The majority of the world agrees as well. Being loud, obnoxious, and narcissistic is not a trait well received by many.
What does this have to do with "the right"? There are many countries where electronic voting isn't done because of the same reasonable concerns, some with left wing governments. Are you going to claim the progressives in Taiwan are right wing? Finland tried introducing electronic voting in 2008 but it was stuck down by their supreme court and the elections where they'd used the machines were declared void and had to be repeated, after inconsistencies had been found. Also you simply have to search for "US voting machines hacked" and similar search terms and you'll find plenty of evidence of manipulation, machines that were supposed to have no internet connection but found to be online, etc. If you're pro democracy but aren't concerned about the security of the voting process, which is the most essential element of democratic systems of all, that's simply idiotic. Someone who care about preventing autocracy would make sure the votes are as secure from being manipulated as possible. Which is why there are plenty of places that do hand counting of paper ballots only. No machines.
Ok Rudy, back to bankruptcy court for you.
I will say the biden ATF has been pretty wild, but you would have to be a gun enthusiast to know. They have unconstitutionally declared many parts illegal that were previously legal and without any legislative changes. Transgender issues seem to remain state issues but the executive branch puts out opinions so its fair to attack them on cultural topics. Voting is another state issue, but with the influx of illegal migration and many states lacking voter ID remains a topic of discussion. Its likely more a border issue than a voting one.
How was the ATF action unconstitutional. Honest question. You don’t need voter ID to keep immigrants from voting. If they tried to vote in any significant numbers the current system would detect it.
>How was the ATF action unconstitutional. Honest question. I was going to dive into sources but ill give you content instead to research. Pistol brace rule is in injunction i believe for being unconstitutional Frames and receiver rule unconstitutional Machine gun rule (forced reset triggers) is a redefinition of existing legislation and unconstitutional. The latest gun dealer rule will likely be unconstitutional. Litigation unfortunately is slow.
So they are being challenged on constitutional grounds but have not yet been found unconstitutional?
Depends on the court i guess. Some courts say yes and then the ATF pushes it to a higher court and here we are. So they are labeled unconstitutional and pending further judgment.
This is why gun nuts can not be reasoned with. None of that is actually unconstitutional. None of that is necessary for gun usage.
Executive agencies dont write law. Defining something as a machine gun that doesn't meet the legal definition is unconstitutional.
It is a grey area but not unconstitutional by any means. The POTUS has the power to enforce the laws, including defining laws and regulations. The SCOTUS can check that power if a case before it is determined to be in conflict such as the second amendment. The actions of the POTUS weren't unconstitutional. The definition or the POTUS interpretation was wrong. So yes the POTUS can define it. The SCOTUS can determine it to be unconstitutional. But not the action of the POTUS.
>POTUS has the power to enforce the laws Yes >defining laws This is congress >defining regulations Yes, based on the laws >The SCOTUS can check that power if a case before it is determined to be in conflict such as the second amendment. The SCOTUS checks the congress for violations made by legislation. The SCOTUS checks the executive for not following legislation through regulation. This case is the latter. >The actions of the POTUS weren't unconstitutional. The definition or the POTUS interpretation was wrong If constitutional authority only grants the executive office to regulate law and they exceed that, by attempting to create law out of whole cloth, it seems unconstitutional to me but it may be pedantic in the words used (exceeded authority) Regardless, the executive is wrong in redefining a machine gun that does not follow the definition as put forth by congress.
I'll let you read this it might help you understand. The constitution is not a stone document that doesn't change. https://www.thepolicycircle.org/brief/the-executive-branch/
I dont see how that changes anything. I took a few govt courses in my time and have done plenty of studying outside of school. Congress has given power to the executive to allow executive orders to change, for example, environmental regulations. >The constitution is not a stone document that doesn't change The constitution is quite solid with only a few dozen amendments. Congress is free to give up some power to the executive, though to our long term detriment likely.
So did Trump and he was open about it.
Are you referring to bunp stocks?
First, I'm referring to the fact he once said, and I quote to take the guns first and due process later. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/trumps-mixed-record-on-gun-control/
Sure, but if i have to choose between biden and trump on gun policy in action ill choose trump. Biden has been far worse than trump was.
To be blunt, the man who says he would take your guns and ignore the constitution is just better than the man who believes in following the law. SMH. Your math doesn't add up.
Trump says a lot of dumb shit. He doesnt follow through most of it. We had 4 years to reflect and compare to the current administration. In the 4 years he signed the bump stock ban (bad). In the 3 years of biden the ATF has changed rules regarding pistol braces, forced reset triggers, frames and receivers, been more aggressive with lawful citizens, and has shut down many gun FFLs for small clerical errors. His rhetoric continues against AR15s and pushing for another AWB in congress. The contrast is quite clear to us ammosexuals.
Trump is the first POTUS in US history to refuse to accept that he lost an election. The first to allow an orderly transfer of power. He is supported by a group who believes in project 2025, a Christian nationalist agenda to remove democracy. His supporters don't just want to change policy. They want to tear down the government. Your guns won't matter unless you plan to jackpot alongside.
Quite a change of subject, but ill argue the points i guess. >Trump is the first POTUS in US history to refuse to accept that he lost an election. The first to allow an orderly transfer of power Im guessing you meant unorderly, yet he did peacefully transfer power and biden became president on jan 20. There was no uprising. He didnt tell people to go get their guns and stop the certification. >He is supported by a group who believes in project 2025, a Christian nationalist agenda to remove democracy. From what ive read, project 2025 is an extreme take on executive agency power. All that power congress has given to the president over time as we discussed in the other thread. >His supporters don't just want to change policy. They want to tear down the government. I think that's a bit extreme. Project 2025 would work within current laws, thats the point. >Your guns won't matter unless you plan to jackpot alongside. With things like project 2025 as you believe it to be you should be happy someone is defending your gun rights.
Can you provide some sources for your outrageous 2A bait?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Discussion/s/ajYK6GlQ5x Link to my other comment.
So no sources except…. You? lol.
I gave a list of topics. Go google them. Or don't idc.
None of those examples have been ruled unconstitutional. You’re just out there spreading misinformation and lies.
Here is one, do i need to get them all...? https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/ghost-guns-rule-exceeds-aft-authority-appeals-court-holds
Got anything that’s not from the 5th circuit of MAGA crazies? you realize how many of their rulings get struck down? The SCOTUS already stayed that decision. 😂😂😂 want to try again?
Like i said they are all going through the legal process still.
The idea of certain gun enthusiasts is that any law on guns is unconstitutional.
And some day you will realize the left is doing the exact same thing…. Or do you really think the world is going to end in 10 years?
Democrats… fixed it for ya
Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean others don't as well.
I think the point being made is that if it wasn’t for conservative media trying to generate clicks, none of the culture war nonsense would have any impact on anyone’s lives.
How do you blame a culture war on a single side? Its left vs right culture issues and you can see state policies which reflect that. When the executive branch or federal government decides to speak on them it becomes nationwide. Dont be mad at the right for calling it out.
Chicken v. Egg. There would be no need for the federal government or executive branch to speak on them if right wing media didn’t foment the outrage in the first place.
Or is the executive branch speaking on them the reactionary response to right states policies? We could dig to find who started it first. I would assume it started with bathroom bills but that feels so long ago at this point. In the end its irrelevant i suppose.
There’s only one side that is actively seeking to limit freedoms, and it’s the right. That’s why I blame a culture war on one side. I saw a car yesterday with a bumper sticker that just said ‘NO - to Democrats’ I mean really, how does anyone choose to believe in a side whose only actual policy is ‘just say no to everything’???
>There’s only one side that is actively seeking to limit freedoms, and it’s the right This hyperbolic talk isnt productive. The left tries to ban guns frequently. >That’s why I blame a culture war on one side. Obviously there are 2 sides to every argument. When the right says they dont want trans people competing in womens sports this is why. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1779379046448595157?t=7HnZsc9ncIz21YRPszCanw&s=19 > I saw a car yesterday with a bumper sticker that just said ‘NO - to Democrats’ And? >I mean really, how does anyone choose to believe in a side whose only actual policy is ‘just say no to everything’??? Wow, I saw an "f trump" bumper sticker. Let me apply that as a policy to the whole democrat party and ask how anyone believes in that policy. Like honestly, wtf...
Uh... what? :o I literally don't see anyone trying to culture war anything unless they're glued to a tv screen 24/7, with fox going hard? I'm not trying to string ya one here, but... I just don't? I've seen a few anomalies here and there, but the answer for that stuff wasn't even culture war. There was nuance where I wondered and wandered. That said, I trend purple, chasing sense and sound solutions to the matters that I've experienced and investigated myself. What'd you get your eyes on?
I dont watch fox but i do consume media from the right as well as central and i will listen to left as well to get perspectives. I would probably consider myself informed and politically active which is a very small portion of the population. Most people dont listen to shows daily. I would say the debate on whether or not to allow minors to transition is a fairly big culture war. Comparing policies from florida and WA or NY give you perspectives for each side as well as rhetoric from prominent figures such as biden or governors of red states. How is that not a culture war in your eyes?
>How is that not a culture war in your eyes? I'll answer this through how I view matters like it. >whether or not to allow minors to transition **Where I fall on this:** I'm actually undecided on this myself - I don't consider that a matter of culture though. I consider it a matter to debate in medical circles because the latest I've read suggests "Trans" has turned out to be visible in ways I hadn't thought it'd be. Neurological ways. It turned out to be more than mere claim. And I'm not Trans. It means that I *can't* live what they experience. That my understanding of what they face will forever be removed from their lived experience. So... I am *not* in my view the person who ought to be dictating a decision that doesn't affect me, but could affect them. I'm leaving that where I think it ought to be - with those who actively research, study, and stew in such outside of the court of public opinion, for if my conversations with a virologist during covid have taught me anything, it's that even though I know a LOT, those with phd's in a matter know a whole world more than I, and often, they know the nuances of that world too. We see a tree? They know the grooves in its bark. That's the sort of person I'd want in charge of a hot button anything like that - those with the most complete understandings of it possible in any given day and age. And, no disrespect, but I doubt that is either of us? :o ... **Political considerations:** It is also, unfortunately, not going to be possible to convince many that the Republican politicians making some of those choices in some of those states understand it either, as far as I've been able to figure out, they are *not* following the advisings of experts in and around such. Jon Stewart actually interviewed one of them, which... might be the best angle into that you could get expediently, as it came up during the matter. Worse, Covid saw the act of demonizing ones doctors turned into a talking point and a badge of merit. And sadly, a large and very loud part of the "it's a hoax" people relied on that, in fact, with proponents inventing false accusations of medical malpractice to explain away the deaths that covid caused. They did the same of news sources during this time as well. This is a huge blast to credibility around such matters for the right wing, and even righties who had more good sense than to believe DJT are quickly lumped in with those who didn't in the aftermath of the first wave. In the same breath, Ron DeSantis was nominated, and a lot of people (myself included) discovered a slew of right wing comics online not satiring, but bullying Trans people, after punching his rhetoric into a search engine. For many, his presence on the podium was little different from giving that a national platform. I'm inclined to agree with that as well, and still utterly confused about what people seem to think that "woke" is. (Though it certainly didn't help that the times I was accused of being "woke" often paired to the recounting of genuinely real and relevant stories from firsthand sources. Stories that were... let's say "less than convenient" for the claimed causes of those who accused me of such. It's really made that term a foggy one.) As such, *republicans may have more trouble being seen as acting in good faith around such matters, and often need to try doubly hard to prove that they're earnest before a real conversation on this can begin.* It's a mix of bad optics and actions that led to that, sadly. **My opinion:** (added this late - forgot to include) I for one have seen enough kids take to enough fads to know there can be a social aspect to this for some, even though, to be certain, being trans is NOT like being goth. There's a grain of truth to the notion that some will identify with a group to fit in if they see it all around then, but... while I've seen people teeter back and forth on whether they feel one way or another while hanging out with furballs on VRC, trans is a very small % of the population, and actually transitioning is *not* a requirement to identify as such. I do believe it's worth considering though, if strictly because in the digital age I've managed to find a high concentration of trans individuals, and I imagine that means others could as well. Of note though, those who push questionable opinions on others do appear to be very rare. In maybe 1000+ Trans folk, only I've only ever come across two like this, and they were soundly shouted down for it by all present (mostly LGBTQ+ folks) both times. I do wonder what kinds of lasting consequences there might be for someone who began a process like this young, only to be unable to afford to keep up with the treatments later in life. It might not be a wise thing to do in an uncertain world, but... neither is firing yourself from a giant slingshot I guess, and I've done that. (Thankfully, it did not end up being... life altering) So I have to question whether that's a reasonable post to hold onto. ... **Follow up Question:** now that you know how I view this, a follow up question for you. *Why does that need to be about culture? I still don't understand the notion that it has to be, but I'd like to see your angle.*
>"Trans" has turned out to be visible in ways I hadn't thought it'd be. Neurological ways. It turned out to be more than mere claim. The data suggests most minors will outgrow it though. How can it be both? >I'm leaving that where I think it ought to be - with those who actively research, study, and stew in such outside of the court of public opinion, for if my conversations with a virologist during covid have taught me anything, it's that even though I know a LOT, those with phd's in a matter know a whole world more than I, and often, they know the nuances of that world too. I think studies are just that. They shouldnt be based on opinions but rather the inverse. It should be used as a part of formulated policies. I can read studies and understand enough to make informed opinions on topics. >That's the sort of person I'd want in charge of a hot button anything like that - those with the most complete understandings of it possible in any given day and age. We have never had it that way. We dont put climatologists in charge of all policy on climate. There are many political considerations. Military jets for example probably pollute a lot. We dont hamstring the military for climate. >Why does that need to be about culture? I still don't understand the notion that it has to be, but I'd like to see your angle. Like most things, the law reflects the culture. Slavery, gay marriage, etc. The culture had to change before the law. For the modern trans debate it kinda changed where laws came faster than culture adjustment. It has led to more division and now trenches are drawn. I suppose slavery may have been similar but it was a divided culture of north vs south.
>I think studies are just that. They shouldnt be based on opinions but rather the inverse. It should be used as a part of formulated policies. I can read studies and understand enough to make informed opinions on topics. I too would love to see policies made around the empirical more often than the intangible or ideological. But I suppose people need a reason to hone in on one thing over another. Opinions can be good in that regard, as the nudge, but if it's be explored before it hit political stages... I suppose such a thing might be less exposed to tribal ebb and flow. I dream about that, cutting through the fluff... >We have never had it that way. We dont put climatologists in charge of all policy on climate. Of course, they won't always know how doing x will effect everything in disciplines beyond their expertise. It's why a varied but experienced team would be the ideal in a climate debate for sure. But around matters medical... If various disciplines can reach a consensus here, I'd struggle to understand why heeding would be being viewed as unwise. What's more, if there exists this discrepancy, one would think that there might be a way to measure it, in time. Not now though for sure. As a lot of our most advanced ideas about the body and brain are evidence based yes, but still our "best guess" in some cases. And even now, though they do try to avoid this risk from what I recall, the screening process isn't perfect... but no such process ever is. Not even background checks for firearms. I truly folk will be as careful as they can legally be. Obviously nobody's about to summon every voice chat anyone ever had online, but as someone who's been pressured by a creep (all groups have some) who wanted my heterosexual ass to do somethin' pretty damn gay, I'd at least encourage them to be sure that it isn't being pushed on them. That happening is rarer than the bullies shouting claim it is, but it *can*, and it has. A small number may not be great cause for panic, but it's worth acknowledging. >Military jets for example probably pollute a lot. Long ago I heard some interesting stories about mileage boosts when military engines were stuck into civilian models Humvees... but despite knowing some really strange shit, I never had the connections to verify whether that one was bogus or not. Per emissions, I think militaries overall were roughly 5%? But... that 5% is often viewed as between us an awful fate, so I won't blame folk for ignoring that sector, much as I truly do hope we innovate before it's too late. Similarly though... the earth warming up could do us all a lot worse than folk want to believe in tbh. I think both people and the military eggheads know that one. So I won't blame folk for seeing it as a tricky call, in some places, in some cases... >The data suggests most minors will outgrow it At a skim of the mention, it's easy for me to wonder if this pokes at the mentioned difference between the "it's a phase" ones and the "it is me" ones. I've met both, after all, teeterers and sold-stone assured. But alas, I'm not familiar with the study you mention, so I oughta give that a poke first I think. Ty for mentioning it. :) >the law reflects the culture. Slavery, gay marriage, etc. This is an excellent description, and it is helping me see what you mean here. I guess what you're saying is, information gradually shifted attitudes around the matter, which eventually helped to prime the whole to better accept it. >For the modern trans debate it kinda changed where laws came faster than culture adjustment. It has led to more division and now trenches are drawn. I get what you mean around this actually. Though I'd suggest that there's a certain noisy sect of the community that has *massively* overreached, and I actually view an amount of the conservative pushback as a good thing in that respect. They pump the brakes it seems until society is "more ready." And as you note, there's something to be said for doing that. What I think happened here, is that there was a certain sort of vitriol exchanged around the first two letters. The L's and the G's, that went over *very* badly, and inclined folk to see the less progressive brake pumpers as "being the bad guys." Which they're usually not. Conservatives who pump the brakes aren't typically ultra regressive or cruelly ruthless... or nakedly embracing such a flavor of corruption. They're even quite thoughtful at times. I don't really get why you caught a downvote for this. I do hope there's someone who would explain their choice without being a cock about it when they do, since I'm actually enjoying your words. Thank you for taking the time?
No, but crazy wingnuts on the right will have you believe they can.
[удалено]
Yeah, because the census counts persons in the country not citizens. Do you know how the constitution works?
Why “most likely the democrats”?
Sanctuary states
You know that sanctuary states aren’t 100% controlled by Democrats by default, right?
There is absolutely zero evidence of this. ZERO. The folks caught voting twice in the last election were republicans and there were like 4 total.
Did you even read what the guy said you responded to?
It’s like 80 individuals in the last 50 years
Non-citizens can not vote in any national elections. But in some places, they can vote in local elections. Such as school boards, judges, mayors, etc. Republicans are scared that Trump is going to get blown out, so they have to create fake outrage. - Can't talk about the border: They voted against their own border bill - Can't talk about Transgenderism: They tried that in 2022 for the "red wave" and it came out to a trickle - Can't talk about gas prices: Gas prices can be explained by Ukraine and the fact that Biden has pumped more oil than any other time in American history. - Can't talk about lack of jobs: Republicans voted against Bidens infrastructure package and are now trying to take credit for the infrastructure projects in their districts and are getting called out for the flip-floping on social media. The GOP can't talk about Hunter Biden anymore because they have yet to do anything with the Laptop they failed to get into the hands of law enforcement before several high ranking Republicans got to it and any evidence they find, can easily be explained by saying, "Republicans added that evidence", same with that Biden family diary. Trump has lost women due to abortion. Lost independents due to wanting to pull out of NATO. Lost about 10-15% of Republican voters, if they're willing to vote Nikki Haley in the primary, they're willing to vote Biden in the general. MAGA is panicking.
this is why school is important, kids.
And why one side is actively trying to dismantle the US education system.
GOPsters have been caught repeatedly voting multiple times.
No. But Republicans have not been truthful since Ford. They are masters of the grift and know what their dribbling throngs need. They are all too happy to shovel it to them in heaping mounds.
fantastic, so surely having safe guards in place like SS number or ID checks will be no problem!
Can they yes, can they legally no. Without a doubt especially with as much identity theft as there is out there and how many illegals in the past or non-citizens if you prefer but back then they were illegals have taken IDs of citizens past or present and use them. There is no doubt whatsoever that they could vote for president with these said identities. They are available for a price and I'm sure that some do use them whether they bother to use them to vote, probably not for at least the vast majority of them, but is it possible without a doubt there are many that do things that are against the law. Within the confines of the law of the United States no they are not supposed to, that does not mean that they are not able to especially and I could see a lot of them getting confused in some of these places where they're trying to push that illegals or non-citizens should be able to vote for local elections. This is one confusing step away from being able to vote in federal elections and in places where they have that if it is enacted anywhere or places where they do in that that ability I could easily see illegals trying to vote because they think they are allowed to.
Just curious how you feel on having to show ID to vote
Reading is fundamental. I was responding to they sneak w tra bullshit into laws
The entire voter fraud thing is a joke. It's playing well for those who refuse to listen to others. Those who have no new experiences or knowledge. Some adults enter into a stage of regression ideologically where nothing new or different can be allowed, and only the already accepted ideas can be reinforced.
Non citizens don't vote idiot.
this thread is off the chain ha!
Anyone who tells you non-citizens can vote in presidential election is lying to your face because they think you are too stupid to know better, and they can lie to you with impunity. \*thinks for 2 seconds\* You mean like politicians and the press lying straight to the US citizens face because the sad fact is MOST of them are that stupid.
“…and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity….” They meant for THEIR descendants, not the drug dealers, traffickers, rapists, murderers and all such beings.
This subreddit is so laughable sometimes, Republicans live absolutely rent free here.
I honestly don't know why they shouldn't be able to vote. Anyone who lives here has a stake in the country. Literate minors in school should be able to vote, too. They aren't less informed than the majority of adults.
Because citizenship grants the right to vote in our constitution.
It is illegal for non citizens to vote in FEDERAL elections. However we know the law doesnt stop things from happening and without voter ID its impossible to confirm identities at the polls. A person (citizen or not) in California could register under a stolen identity and show up to any polling place to vote saying they are that person. There is no way to verify identity. In theory, one could attempt to register stolen identities and then use those identities to vote at various polling places undetected. Its not a far reach, when act blue was falsely using small donors names to make large donations, to assume something could be done at a larger scale. https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-demands-answers-from-fec-on-potential-actblue-fraudulent-donations/ >>The District of Columbia and municipalities in three states allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections as of March 2024: California, Maryland, and Vermont. >>https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States >>According to the Pew Research Center, there were over 25 million noncitizens living in the U.S. as of 2020. That included approximately 12 million permanent residents and 2 million temporary residents who were in the country with legal permission, as well as approximately 11 million immigrants who resided in the country without legal permission.[3
You’re lying when you say there’s “no way to know.” This has been studied extensively. We have a very very good idea about how much voter fraud there is - we’ve never been able to turn up numbers that are greater than the margin of error.
Im honestly not sure how you verify there is virtually no voter fraud when you lack the tools to even detect it. Its like blinding yourself and then saying you cant see it so its not happening. Without voter ID, you dont know if a registered voter is who they say they are. You cannot know because you are not checking. Saying it doesnt exist seems foolish to me.
We do have voter ID. You have to register to vote and your name is checked against is registry when you go to vote. The worst someone could pull off is voting in someone else’s name, which would only succeed if that person didn’t vote themselves. It seems like you don’t actually know that much about the process or how we track it, but are presenting it as if you do.
>We do have voter ID. You have to register to vote and your name is checked against is registry when you go to vote Idk if you intentionally are ignoring what voter id means but here is a source to debunk your claim. >>The remaining 16 states did not require voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day. >>https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state >The worst someone could pull off is voting in someone else’s name, which would only succeed if that person didn’t vote themselves On average about 61% of the population votes. That leaves 39% (thats 100 million US adults) of people who dont. It wouldnt be difficult to find unregistered identities (considering how many people get their ssns stolen) and vote in their name. >>https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html The point is, how do you know if you lack the tools to know? Its facetious to claim otherwise. >It seems like you don’t actually know that much about the process or how we track it, but are presenting it as if you do. You didnt even describe voter id correctly and you are saying i am uninformed?
And I absolutely did describe voter ID correctly. The fact that they don’t require you to present the card is irrelevant if they’re checking the register. You’re far fetched scheme in which people suss out non-voters who are register in order to vote in their place would take so much coordination that it would leave a massive paper trail. How do they ensure those people don’t vote themselves? How do they find them in the first place? What if they decided to vote last minute? All of this would be mandatory to pull off the type of fraud you’re theorizing (baselessly, I might add). “Oh well it could happen and we lack the tools to know if it is” is magical thinking. It’s “there might be a Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky and we just don’t have the tools to see him” caliber stuff. We do have the tools. We’ve monitored this stuff extensively. We’ve audited contentious elections - we’ve never once turned up anything greater than the margin of error in even the most exhaustive audits. So yes - you’re either uninformed or deliberately lying
>would take so much coordination that it would leave a massive paper trail. How do they ensure those people don’t vote themselves? How do they find them in the first place? What if they decided to vote last minute? Addresses and names are public record. There are plenty of black market sites to find other identifying information like SSNs and passwords and emails. A basic program can find and link the two then you have all the info you need to register under their name which can also be automated. States have websites to check to see if you are registered and so a person may check if their victim is registered and avoid that vote. Then you show up, lie about your identity, and vote. Wow that took me 2 seconds to imagine how hard would it be for a motivated small group to conspire?
If they’re not regulated then they wouldn’t be able to vote in their name. You’re not even trying to keep your paranoia consistent now. There’s no state that allows you to vote without being registered. The best you could do is hope to impersonate someone who is that isn’t going to vote.
>There’s no state that allows you to vote without being registered. You cant imagine somebody registering under another persons identity?
Every state requires you to present some form of ID to register. What you’re talking about would be essentially full on identify theft, a process so complicated it would not be worth the ultimately negligible outcome. This is what I’m saying - you’re presenting as a straw man problem something that not only is there no evidence of, there’s no clear incentive. In order for this to have any effect on elections it would need to be coordinated on a scale that would be impossible to miss.
We do have the tools. Once again - you’re presenting supposition as if it’s fact, ignoring the actual data. You’re cherry picking quotes to try to prove a point that is beyond disproven.
Please explain or cite the tools that allow us to identify if a vote cast, by a person in a state without voter id, is cast by the person who they say they are. Thats the whole point of voter id and 16 states dont require it.
Do you think they just say “hi, go on and vote” when you show up to vote in those states lol. No. They’re asking who you are, and checking it against the voting register. Just because you can imagine a scenario doesn’t make it a valid threat.
>No. They’re asking who you are, and checking it against the voting register. Just because you can imagine a scenario doesn’t make it a valid threat. Nobody has ever lied or committed fraud before. If people are willing to commit financial fraud why wouldnt they commit political fraud? I honestly cannot understand defending no-id voting laws. Its the most basic check possible and would make people like me less skeptical.
So you think illegal immigrants are going to commit in person voter fraud to vote without knowing whether the person they’re impersonating plans to vote? That’s one helluva gamble considering how easily they’d be convicted if they were wrong. If they succeed, they’d change exactly one vote. To commit in person voter fraud to the degree it would take to move an election isn’t possible under the current system. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. Unnecessary requirements just reduce voter turnout
So if there is a landslide for President Trump you all will agree that every vote is valid.
I mean I doubt it will since he’s not won a popular vote yet, but even if he does, I would have no reason to think voter fraud pushed him over the edge unless there’s actual evidence of it.
So please explain how does someone vote using a stolen identity. I would be shocked if a non-citizen tried to vote. If caught, they would go to jail for a while and then get deported. Why would they do it?
Seriously. It’s high risk for essentially zero reward. Absurd.
Exactly! But the Republicans keep weaving this tale of illegal voting without providing any details, proof or motives.
I explained above >>without voter ID its impossible to confirm identities at the polls. A person (citizen or not) in California could register under a stolen identity and show up to any polling place to vote saying they are that person. There is no way to verify identity.
You ever work as an election judge? You do have to provide some information about yourself. A dark skinned 30 year old man speaking poor English with a heavy Spanish accent probably would have trouble posing as 75 year old Joseph Bronski.
Make sure they can’t with the new law. Pass it!!!
Sarcasm?
Do not need new law.
If they aren’t voting you shouldn’t have a problem with it then. Now we can make it official.
It's already official with the previous law though. All a new law would do is help them sneak in extra bullshit.
You mean like they do with gun control
Was what I said not clear? Or do you only understand and empathize with shit that might directly effect you
It already is official, you imbecile.
You’re easy to trigger😉
Should we make a new law prohibiting murder or tax fraud illegal as well? Maybe a law stating that it’s illegal to set fire to a building?
In the mean time we should also build sanctuaries to protect unicorns, stop sending foreign aid to place like Saturn and Jupiter, give halflings and gnome voting rights and we really should look into doing some about the dragons terrorizing the residents in Alaska. Lets just go all out passing bills to stop things from happening that aren't actually happening.
Halflings yes, gnomes no
Also, if it’s not happening, you shouldn’t have a problem passing a bill to make sure it doesn’t happen🤷🏼♂️
Great let's pass my suggested bills as well. Since obviously non of what I suggested is actually happening no one should have a problem with passing those bills.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/19-aliens-charged-voter-fraud-north-carolina-following-ice-investigation You can’t say it doesn’t happen.
It’s redundant. It’s already law. Why not also make a bill that makes murder illegal?
It's already illegal, why would they need a new bill?
Everyone should just show their ID and prove they live in America and can vote. Won’t that clear it up?? Especially in California…
No, legally non-citizens cannot vote. They will be, though. You know that.
No, I don't know it. That is just MAGA BS, and if you believe it, they are right, you are stupid!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Sarcasm?
I'm not sure the word means what you think it means.
No, I was asking if what you wrote was sarcastic or not.
It wasn't me but you've asked abt sarcasm twice now.
Read where I asked it.
You killed my father. Prepare to die!
How?
[удалено]
We’re talking about presidential elections, not local elections. States that require no photo ID still have lists of eligible voters at polling places, requiring a signature next to your name to vote. Many require a nonphoto voter ID or a postcard you receive in the mail with your name on it. A non-citizen would have to pretend to be a citizen in that district and forge their signature on the line to vote, which carries criminal penalty if caught and most won’t risk deportation over that. And for states that let these people get drivers’ licenses, they still don’t show up as eligible voters at the polling places. So no, what you said here is a myth.
I live in a no ID state and have never signed my name to vote. My last name is difficult to spell and last time I should my ID because she could not find my name her words were "I am not allowed to look at that"
You’re confusing “non-citizen” with “illegal immigrant”. They are not the same thing.
For example, in CA an illegal immigrant can get a driver's license. They then use that to register to vote. They're not supposed to, but hey, whatever they can do to keep the gravy train rolling, you know?
Not true, they have to get a specialized non-citizen driver’s license that prevents them from registering to vote.
Glad to hear that.
Is this before or after Obama takes all the guns?
Who dropped you on your head?