What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

alfablue said:
What is your definition of "fair"?

Seriously.

Just that registered voters are voting? If you think that is not true, you need to come up with ANY evidence that it is true- real voting evidence. And in large enough numbers that matter.

Are you worried that people are being charged a poll tax? You have to pay to have and ID to vote, which is a poll tax, and it not Constitutional.

Are you worried that people are otherwise obstructed in their voting- too many people for one voting area, not open in time, document problems?

Or even worried about hacking by ANYONE (let alone the russians).

The last part, you don't seem very worried at all, given the desire to end the russian investigation.

Seems like what you think is "fair" is different than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

How about 144% as many voter registrations in southern California counties over those eligible to vote. And don't give me BS about people moving; that'll account for maybe 5%.

Who said you would have to pay to get an ID? A voter ID could be 100% subsidized by a state government if they chose to do IDs (Note VEHEMENT opposition to the federalization of elections, like Obama did in 2016 and then tried to institute martial law once Trump won, which is in the government documents, but didn't have the military support so he chickened out). Although given states (such as mine) are using computer scanners to validate IDs, it'd be very easy to disenfranchise voters, hence why I have been against voter IDs since the concept came out. Not to mention, you could theoretically add people into the database that are illegal.

The whole point is making sure that only legal citizens are voting in an election. Democrats want the illegal vote because they'll give the illegals free stuff, hence the illegals will vote Democrat. Of course people aren't going to see a problem with an issue when it benefits them.
 
aparch said:
Did you... Did you, umm, even read the article? 52% of your "Republicans" said that they would support Trump delaying or suspending the elections; +4% if they're suspended/delayed to eliminate illegal voters.


Also, in an interesting narrative twist, the "Party of Smaller Government Interference" is supportive of broad federal rules regarding the election; when state laws currently control the terms of federal elections.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States


So please be careful dismounting your high horse. Would hate to see you fall and injure yourself.
Click to expand...

If they can't be fair, they shouldn't happen. So do you and others support letting anyone vote, regardless of whether they are legal or not?
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
Remember the one Congressman that tried to repeal the 22nd amendment at each time a new Congress came around the past few years?
Click to expand...

José Serrano (D-NY)? He's done it to every new congress since 2001 (GWB's run). Harry Reid (D-NV) also was a proponent, pushing it a few times since 1989 (also during a Bush era).

Regan got the ball rolling in 1986 saying, "in thinking about it more and more, I have come to the conclusion that the 22nd Amendment was a mistake."

Clinton also expressed changes to the 22nd to allow for a third term after a term or two away from the office.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hes-to-end-term-limits-for-us-presidency.html

Interesting that it was two Dems proposing the idea during (R) controlled presidencies.
 
Drew S. said:
If they can't be fair, they shouldn't happen. So do you and others support letting anyone vote, regardless of whether they are legal or not?
Click to expand...

I support following the rules as the states have put forth. If Grandma volunteers on election day, and let's the nice man who didn't speak too good and couldn't find what sounded like his name vote, maybe Grandma needs to not be invited back to help the election committee.

Here's a novel idea, how about people do their fu**ing job instead of creating new overreaching rules for a problem that totals a fraction of a fraction of a percent of all votes cast?
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

In the event of a catastrophe I can see delaying an election. The delay may be local or it may be national.

However, NO results from a state may be reported/disclosed until all the polls in that state that have a bearing on the election have closed.

So if Hurricane Sandy had happened on 11/8/16, the election results from New Jersey and New York would have been delayed until everyone who wanted to vote voted.
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

Drew S. said:
If they can't be fair, they shouldn't happen. So do you and others support letting anyone vote, regardless of whether they are legal or not?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think anyone does. Only one side implies that it's a frequent problem despite zero evidence to support their theory and tries to suppress votes based on this made up problem. Well at least other than the Trump woman who said she voted twice and got in trouble for it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

aparch said:
José Serrano (D-NY)? He's done it to every new congress since 2001 (GWB's run). Harry Reid (D-NV) also was a proponent, pushing it a few times since 1989 (also during a Bush era).

Regan got the ball rolling in 1986 saying, "in thinking about it more and more, I have come to the conclusion that the 22nd Amendment was a mistake."

Clinton also expressed changes to the 22nd to allow for a third term after a term or two away from the office.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hes-to-end-term-limits-for-us-presidency.html

Interesting that it was two Dems proposing the idea during (R) controlled presidencies.
Click to expand...

Not really that interesting. You have to factor in how long it takes to put through a Constitutional Amendment, whether by Congress or state legislatures. Also couple that the globalists want as much apparent "change" as possible (i.e. between D and R to make sure people can't become complacent, as per Dr. Day), the Democrats use that timing to their advantage. The amendment would be ratified by the time a D is in office, just like how some of their fiscally terrible legislation (repeal of Glass-Steagall, sub-prime lending, PPACA) has the known worst parts take place when it is expected that an R will be in office.
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

trixR4kids said:
No, I don't think anyone does. Only one side implies that it's a frequent problem despite zero evidence to support their theory and tries to suppress votes based on this made up problem. Well at least other than the Trump woman who said she voted twice and got in trouble for it.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, you look up "voter fraud", and there are plenty of cases. How about the dealings of ACORN with multiple registrations for a person.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
How about 144% as many voter registrations in southern California counties over those eligible to vote. And don't give me BS about people moving; that'll account for maybe 5%.
Click to expand...

Sounds like lazy record keeping on those Californian election committees. Define moving. Are you talking only about those who move out of state? Because moving across the street in highly populated areas will cause a change of voting precinct. Move to three different apartments in three years, and now you're registered in three different voting precincts.

I moved to Illinois from Michigan in 2006. I've lived in two different Michigan cities and four different cities in Illinois, two different locations for one Illinois city.

I did my civic duty and "motor voter" registered to vote everywhere I lived when I updated my drivers license.

IF there has not been a purge of inactive voter registration, I would be registered twice in Michigan and five times in the state of Illinois (twice in the same county!).

All legally, because I updated my voter information as written by each voting commission each time I updated my address of residence.




If there is voter fraud, start cross referencing votes cast per county against US census information per county. Find those anomalies, and proceed from there. "Voter Registration Inflation" is the wrong path to this "problem."
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Funny thing is, you look up "voter fraud", and there are plenty of cases. How about the dealings of ACORN with multiple registrations for a person.
Click to expand...

"Voter fraud" requires actual voting with an invalid registration. It is different than voter registration fraud. Which also didn't happen with ACORN, as ACORN flagged the bogus registrations before turning them into to the states.
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

joecct said:
In the event of a catastrophe I can see delaying an election. The delay may be local or it may be national.

However, NO results from a state may be reported/disclosed until all the polls in that state that have a bearing on the election have closed.

So if Hurricane Sandy had happened on 11/8/16, the election results from New Jersey and New York would have been delayed until everyone who wanted to vote voted.
Click to expand...

Problem eliminated with longer voting periods and vote by mail. Oregon already does this. Voter fraud? Zero.

Jim Crow II right now is a Republican strategy to drive down poor black voting. However, with the parties diverging on education it won't belong before there is a significant information and competence gap between the parties and at that point all these laws are going to start disenfranchising poor whites. Right about the time the country becomes majority non-white.

Careful what you wish for, my friend. Nothing says Jim Crow III won't land on rural white skulls. It's fun and games now, but you just might want strong voting rights laws then.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Problem eliminated with longer voting periods and vote by mail. Oregon already does this. Voter fraud? Zero.

Jim Crow II right now is a Republican strategy to drive down poor black voting. However, with the parties diverging on education it won't belong before there is a significant information and competence gap between the parties and at that point all these laws are going to start disenfranchising poor whites. Right about the time the country becomes majority non-white.

Careful what you wish for, my friend. Nothing says Jim Crow III won't land on rural white skulls.
Click to expand...

I'm already a racist homophobe. Why not go for the next step??

Oh and this just in......

@FoxNews: College student gets 100 days in slammer for registering dead voters for Dems http://fxn.ws/2wL49fV via @foxnewspolitics https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/895667305258131462/photo/1
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

Drew S. said:
Republicans 100% support fair elections, not sure you can say that about democrats.
Click to expand...

Dude even Flaggy trolls better than that.

Unless you are serious...in which case you might literally be the dumbest poster on this board. (or any board)
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

joecct said:
The same ID that allows you to get past a TSA checkpoint or drive a car should be sufficient.
Click to expand...

The republican politicians have convinced people like you that voter fraud is rampant because if they can implement the voter ID requirements it with disproportional affect certain demographics that lean left possibly lowering their turn out for at least a few election cycles.

honestly, I would probably be okay with a voter ID requirement provided:

1) it is free
2) it can be obtained at any post office and town/city hall and is printed on site (no waiting 3 months for them to mail you a card) (could even print on-site for Maine's same-day voter registration)
3) states are given 4 years to implement
 
Re: POTUS 45.15 - Now With More Yacht Banging Stories!

Just remember...stopping minority voters is fair cause they vote Democrat!

BTW the actual convicted voter frauds tend to be Republican...but hey Republicans and the Right never let facts prove them wrong!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top