World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Tanooki]

Not a fan of the ACLUs crusading garbage either, but enough of that list is a valid argument than not. I don't care if more blacks and the elderly don't have IDs, that's a choice, their fault. They're right, states have budget issues, but a remedy would be a gov't issued free citizens ID. It's a cost sure, but it would make the argument useless to make as it being a tax.

That same card like credit cards these days could have a chip inside, have the voting boxes or a box at the desk scan you in so your one vote is there after the person there verifies you look like the person on it. Sure it's not 100% going to stop someone with some hollywood magic on their face to cover their ID but it's better than what exists. The ACLU argument there solves nothing but enables people who continue to exist as a hurdle to be one so they can keep making the dumb argument instead of actually solving it.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Here's a pretty big list of answers to these questions: [url]https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter ... fact-sheet[/url

Not worth reading that list of lies. That organization the biggest fraud having sued so many millions pushing their agenda!

What, specifically, has the ACLU done that you disagree with? What part of their "agenda" is disagreeable to you?

Yeah...The ACLU is a fantastic organization that has done some amazing legal work to ensure that our civil liberties are honored and protected appropriately. I never could understand what any person would have against that organization.

Also, in-person voter fraud is a bogeyman used to justify minority voter suppression efforts. As DSH noted, there is no evidence of it occurring at a level high enough to influence an election for municipal dog catcher, much less a national election. It is not, in fact, a "big problem" in California or anywhere else.

Finally, why would anyone commit in-person voter fraud (much less use "Holywood magic" to conceal his identity to cast a single fraudulent ballot)? The penalties are too high, and the reward is so, so low. (It would be like holding up a bank to steal a penny.)

[MrPopo]

As someone who thinks Trump is a raging dumpster fire, I think this recount is also a terrible idea. Either the result is affirmed and you have some additional resentment from that camp, or the result is overturned. If all three states flip off of a recount then suddenly Trump loses and now the election has truly been stolen from him. I would not be looking forward to the reaction from his supporters from such an event.

[Tanooki]

It would be a gun toting 2nd amendment loving outright armed resistance, and of course people on the other side aren't unarmed either. It would break out into something epic and ugly. Sure the proof would be there he lost, but given where it is now, and where it would have to go to get there, neither side would back down one bit and he sure as hell would go off on a tirade like anyone naturally would having their chain jerked around that badly.

[dsheinem]

I believe it would be bad if Trump lost in a recount, but far worse if he served his term.

[Sarge]

The ACLU is a rather left-leaning organization these days, so it shouldn't be surprising some of us are not fans. They have done good work in some cases, not so good in others.

I know some of you think voter fraud is no issue, but it's notoriously difficult to root out with our current setup in most places, much less prove it, so unless some sort of measures are taken, we will never know who is right. And as I'm sure we'll all agree, elections are serious business.

[dsheinem]

I know some of you think voter fraud is no issue, but it's notoriously difficult to root out with our current setup in most places, much less prove it, so unless some sort of measures are taken, we will never know who is right. And as I'm sure we'll all agree, elections are serious business.

Why do you believe voter fraud is "notoriously difficult to root out?" According to who? What about the people who actually do find it or who study it from a place of expertise...do they say this? Why would you claim "we will never know who is right"? That seems like the logical fallacy of "false balance"...

[jp1]

The ACLU is a rather left-leaning organization these days, so it shouldn't be surprising some of us are not fans. They have done good work in some cases, not so good in others.

I know some of you think voter fraud is no issue, but it's notoriously difficult to root out with our current setup in most places, much less prove it, so unless some sort of measures are taken, we will never know who is right. And as I'm sure we'll all agree, elections are serious business.

All due respect Sarge, this just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concept of being against a left leaning government (although I don't agree). However, being against a left leaning non-profit organization just feels like you are against the "left" for all the wrong reasons. They are trying to protect civil liberties, surely you support that, or do you?

[CRTGAMER]

Considering many states do not even require any sort of way to verify if registered voter or not, Voter Fraud is a real problem especially here in California. When I go to my designated Poll all I have to state is my name and sign under my name already printed on the provided by poll worker address list! Fortunately no one as of yet took my name off my mail box and beaten me to the polls. Of course I would report if it ever would happen, but then I still could not vote!

The crap of ID requirement discouraging voters from participating should not even be an issue to keep the votes legitimate, everyone should have an I.D. matched to their voter registered address! Right to Vote comes with expected duty to honesty.

Also, in-person voter fraud is a bogeyman used to justify minority voter suppression efforts.

Really? I don't see how it is minority suppression to require everyone to have a legitimate I.D. to vote.

Not a fan of the ACLUs crusading garbage either, but enough of that list is a valid argument than not. I don't care if more blacks and the elderly don't have IDs, that's a choice, their fault. They're right, states have budget issues, but a remedy would be a gov't issued free citizens ID. It's a cost sure, but it would make the argument useless to make as it being a tax.

The ACLU argument there solves nothing but enables people who continue to exist as a hurdle to be one so they can keep making the dumb argument instead of actually solving it.

There is no reason to create another overpriced Government issued I.D. card. The DMV already can issue a non driver I.D. card. Some states do charge for an I.D. card, but any state that does require an I.D for voting issues free voter I.D cards after submitting proof of U.S. Citizen.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/

The Green Party scam to fill up their coffers by asking for impossible recounts is now being joined by the badly defeated & demoralized Democrats. In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!

Pretty bold accusation, but might have some merit?

http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 ... iens-vote/

California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1461, the New Motor Voter Act, which will automatically register people to vote through the DMV, and could result in illegal aliens voting.

Any person who renewed or secured a driver’s license through the DMV may now register to vote, or choose to opt out of doing so. Because illegal immigrants are now eligible for obtaining driver’s licenses, they could be allowed to vote in elections if the Secretary of State’s office fails to verify their eligibility properly.

Although noncitizens’ driver’s licenses in California feature the phrases “Federal Limits Apply” and “not valid for official federal purposes,” True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell pointed out that state officials “specifically chose not to make noncitizen license holders searchable in their DMV database.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_ ... ted_States



The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) categories state-level voter ID laws as follows:

*Strict photo ID required: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

*Strict non-photo ID required: Arizona, North Dakota and Ohio.

*Non-Strict photo ID requested: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Texas.

*Non-Strict non-photo ID requested: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

*No ID required to vote at ballot box: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

I know some of you think voter fraud is no issue, but it's notoriously difficult to root out with our current setup in most places, much less prove it, so unless some sort of measures are taken, we will never know who is right.

And as I'm sure we'll all agree, elections are serious business.

Agree. Though only a few states require an I.D., the non I.D. states have no idea who actually is voting legal or not!

[marurun]

There are many poor and minority citizens who do not have access to birth certificates, or who do not have the knowledge or time (because they work 2 or 3 unforgiving jobs) to navigate sometimes arcane documentation requirements for valid IDs. And in a stunning hypocrisy, some states allow firearms licenses, even though those often don't demand the same documentation rigor of other IDs. So basically, most voter ID laws are carefully crafted to favor white voters and the IDs they are most likely to have, and often exclude many federal forms of ID the poor and minorities are likely to carry.

Further, voter ID advocates have failed time and time again to demonstrate a real need for these laws. They can ably craft hypotheticals, but offer no evidence of actual harm. There are easier ways to practice voter verification and most places do so already.