2020 Election

[ANGUS]

I was able to secure recycled tissues. Would any of you snow flakes like them? I know your liberal left wing tears are sensitive.

[deadheadskier]

I was able to secure recycled tissues. Would any of you snow flakes like them? I know your liberal left wing tears are sensitive.

Haven't seen you around in several days. Just getting home from DC?

[ANGUS]

No. Just coming out of my bunker for com check.

[easyrider16]

The President's speech - how embarrassing. The counting isn't even finished and he's claiming fraud. Where's the evidence?

This is so dangerous. He is sowing seeds of discord that could lead to violence. This is an attack against our most basic ideals of a democratic republic. He is trying to delegitimize a legitimate election. All you Trump supporters, how can you continue to support him after something like this? Are your tax cuts and your Supreme Court justices worth this?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Predicted this outcome back in November. Do I get to say, "I told you so?" Wish I didn't have to, honestly.

Sadly, it looks like the violence may not be over. Kooks across the country are planning armed rallies.
https://www.insidernj.com/alert-fbi-rep ... 50-states/

This is Trump's legacy. He built this.

[deadheadskier]

Looks like the national response to election losses by the GOP is continued efforts at voter suppression. Continue to hoodwink the base that fraud is rampant by Democrats and why Republicans lose.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/07/96459894 ... er-to-vote

[easyrider16]

It will work too because Republicans will keep losing. It won't be because of fraud of course, but their supporters won't see it that way.

Curious to see if the GOP can eventually right this ship or if a third party comes along and takes its spot in the two party system.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[XtremeJibber2001]

It will work too because Republicans will keep losing. It won't be because of fraud of course, but their supporters won't see it that way.

Curious to see if the GOP can eventually right this ship or if a third party comes along and takes its spot in the two party system.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

The 'voter suppression' term is overused, $.02. For example, PA may require mail in ballots to be received by election day instead of 3 days after election day. Many articles say this is suppression, but I think it's a reasonable change.

PA GOP trying to eliminate 'no-excuse' voting by mail I would file under suppression. It should not matter how I choose to vote.

[easyrider16]

One man's reasonable rule is another man's voter suppression. Requiring an ID to vote seems reasonable until you look at the numbers and see how disproportionately it affects minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat). So then it becomes, Republicans think it's reasonable, Democrats think it's voter suppression.

This is yet another reason to have more than two parties. More parties means less chance one will try to stack the deck against the others. With three or more parties, one party would be much less likely to have the numbers to make it happen. With two parties, all you need is 50% plus one, which happens all the time.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Stormchaser]

This is yet another reason to have more than two parties. More parties means less chance one will try to stack the deck against the others. With three or more parties, one party would be much less likely to have the numbers to make it happen. With two parties, all you need is 50% plus one, which happens all the time.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Partisan Political Ad Campaigns make this tough to accomplish. The majority of ads are spun so far in one direction or the other, that few have much legitimacy. I've advocated for years for the elimination of PACs and honestly political advertising all together. There's no truth in advertising, and no accountability for falsehoods. Make the candidates for all positions speak for themselves.

[Bubba]

One man's reasonable rule is another man's voter suppression. Requiring an ID to vote seems reasonable until you look at the numbers and see how disproportionately it affects minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat). So then it becomes, Republicans think it's reasonable, Democrats think it's voter suppression.

Not that I think there's rampant voter fraud but I've never quite understood why the ID requirement affects minority voters more so than others. One needs an ID of some kind for lots of things unrelated to voting and, somehow, people seem to get them. As long as the ID requirement is a reasonable one, I just don't see this as a problem.

[XtremeJibber2001]

One man's reasonable rule is another man's voter suppression. Requiring an ID to vote seems reasonable until you look at the numbers and see how disproportionately it affects minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat). So then it becomes, Republicans think it's reasonable, Democrats think it's voter suppression.

Not that I think there's rampant voter fraud but I've never quite understood why the ID requirement affects minority voters more so than others. One needs an ID of some kind for lots of things unrelated to voting and, somehow, people seem to get them. As long as the ID requirement is a reasonable one, I just don't see this as a problem.

If everyone is sent a voter ID card in the mail, just like a SS card, then I'd be okay with it. But the mail isn't secure, right?

[easyrider16]

I tend to agree, but I don't live the same kind of life that someone affected by this might be living. Remember, before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. Because then you're a mile away, and you have his shoes.

In all seriousness, I happen to think requiring an ID to vote is reasonable so long as you ensure that anyone who requests one has access to a free form of ID. But people in minority communities tend to be very distrustful of government (given their history of mistreatment at the hands of our government not long ago) and therefore tend to be much less likely to go out and procure a free ID for fear of the government using it against them somehow. Also, there are whole bunches of people that live in cities and rarely if ever leave, don't drive, and have no reason to have a picture ID. It seems weird, but it's true.

[gardi]

It also seems weird to me, but it appears to happen quite a bit
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/64464895 ... ally-tough
The article quotes a 2012 survey suggesting that 7% of American adults lack a government ID, and it gives a few examples of why people end up not being able to easily get one (also hinting at why it affects minority voters more).

A system requiring IDs makes sense to me, but I can also see why coming up with one that is fair might be very challenging.

[deadheadskier]

One man's reasonable rule is another man's voter suppression. Requiring an ID to vote seems reasonable until you look at the numbers and see how disproportionately it affects minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat). So then it becomes, Republicans think it's reasonable, Democrats think it's voter suppression.

Not that I think there's rampant voter fraud but I've never quite understood why the ID requirement affects minority voters more so than others. One needs an ID of some kind for lots of things unrelated to voting and, somehow, people seem to get them. As long as the ID requirement is a reasonable one, I just don't see this as a problem.

If everyone is sent a voter ID card in the mail, just like a SS card, then I'd be okay with it. But the mail isn't secure, right?

Just put a picture on the SS card. Mandate renewal every ten years like a passport. Boom. Done.

[Nikoli]

What do you do if you lose your card right before the election? Does that preclude you from voting in that election?