Biden says military would help oust Trump if he loses election but refuses to leave

[candide]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Your first source provides no meaningful information, not even a date.

 

Your second source states the obvious; people don't change their voter registration status after they die.  Dead people are notoriously lazy.

 

Your third sources of about a man who filed illegal voter registrations and was charged for doing so.  That's how the system works.

 

Your fourth source is also about a person who attempted to file illegal voter registrations and was caught.

 

Your final source is about an organization that has been closed for ten years.

 

All of your sources are about attempts at illegal registration or voter lists that haven't been purged of dead people.  None of them are about illegal voting.  None of them suggests that the registration problems resulted in illegal voting.  None of them indicate any influence on any election.

 

 

Come on! A guy registered his dog and was caught. It's indisputable proof that Dems are known for cheating! ????

[FarangULong]

On 6/17/2020 at 11:23 PM, Crazy Alex said:

Well, Democrats are known for cheating in elections, so a wise person isn't going to agree to concede an election when running against people who register dead people, hand out voter registration cards to refugees just arriving in the US and the various voter registration scams Democrats have been caught in.

I wouldn't say "known", but I don't even live in the US and have heard of the "dead people vote". And why is that the Democrats and pro-Democrat minorities (still on the Democrat plantation after over 1,5 centuries) scream "voter suppression", when Republicans/Trump ask for voters to show valid ID.

 

It's not like they don't have ID (unless they're illegals, and even then they are given driver's licenses by places like Californizuela), or they couldn't go clubbing, they couldn't go to the bar, they couldn't do anything.

 

So what are they worried about? I am pro freedom, against government snooping into my business etc. But I have no problem with having to show ID before I cast my vote.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Come on! A guy registered his dog and was caught. It's indisputable proof that Dems are known for cheating! ????

Yeah, I'm sure the illegal dog vote has changed the outcome of many elections. ????

Edited June 21, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, FarangULong said:

I wouldn't say "known", but I don't even live in the US and have heard of the "dead people vote". And why is that the Democrats and pro-Democrat minorities (still on the Democrat plantation after over 1,5 centuries) scream "voter suppression", when Republicans/Trump ask for voters to show valid ID.

 

It's not like they don't have ID (unless they're illegals, and even then they are given driver's licenses by places like Californizuela), or they couldn't go clubbing, they couldn't go to the bar, they couldn't do anything.

 

So what are they worried about? I am pro freedom, against government snooping into my business etc. But I have no problem with having to show ID before I cast my vote.

A small fraction of people, mostly old, don't have ID's.  More important some states make it difficult to prove residency and get an ID acceptable for voting.

 

However the issue of the moment is vote by mail.  Many states allow it for anyone who is registered to vote to request a mail ballot.  To register and request a mail ballot a person must give identifying personal information along with an address.  Anyone trying to do this illegally will provide ample evidence of their crime, and are extremely unlikely to influence an election outcome.  That's why numerous studies have failed to identify any state or national election in which the result might have been affected by illegal voting.

Edited June 21, 2020 by heybruce

[jimmybcool]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

I see; you think the requirements for voter registration should be tougher than the requirements for opening a bank account, selling a house, filing taxes and getting a refund, etc.  Your criteria would preclude a lot of men and women in the military from registering to vote, and I don't see how it would be any more secure.

 

My question wasn't a joke, it was there to identify the absurdity of your obsession with ID's.

Obsession?  LOL.  You are so far off track.  I want it as secure are buying a bottle of booze.  Seems the obsession is with letting anyone vote regardless of having the actual right to do so.  The question IS a joke.

 

 

[FarangULong]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

A small fraction of people, mostly old, don't have ID's.  More important some states make it difficult to prove residency and get an ID acceptable for voting.

 

However the issue of the moment is vote by mail.  Many states allow it for anyone who is registered to vote to request a mail ballot.  To register and request a mail ballot a person must give identifying personal information along with an address.  Anyone trying to do this illegally will provide ample evidence of their crime, and are extremely unlikely to influence an election outcome.  That's why numerous studies have failed to identify any state or national election in which the result might have been affected by illegal voting.

If you struggle to get an ID (which is not hard at all, even though it's slightly - but to a miniscule degree - "harder" in some states), and don't know how to/too lazy to get one, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

 

It is beyond me, how anyone can even defend this. How is it in any shape or form, and for anyone in their right mind, a great idea to let people vote, without them being able to show valid ID??!! This screams potential for abuse.

[johnpetersen]

8 hours ago, FarangULong said:

I wouldn't say "known", but I don't even live in the US and have heard of the "dead people vote". And why is that the Democrats and pro-Democrat minorities (still on the Democrat plantation after over 1,5 centuries) scream "voter suppression", when Republicans/Trump ask for voters to show valid ID.

 

It's not like they don't have ID (unless they're illegals, and even then they are given driver's licenses by places like Californizuela), or they couldn't go clubbing, they couldn't go to the bar, they couldn't do anything.

 

So what are they worried about? I am pro freedom, against government snooping into my business etc. But I have no problem with having to show ID before I cast my vote.

You sure about that?

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

 

In a lot of countries it's mandatory to have a government ID card. Not in the US. 

In this article they cite Hans van Spakovsky, who was once in charge of elections in Georgia. Because there were lots of poor people in rural areas who didn't have transportation Georgia was required to come up with solution. Here's Spakovsky's: 1  voter registration vehicle for the entire state of Georgia.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by johnpetersen

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, FarangULong said:

If you struggle to get an ID (which is not hard at all, even though it's slightly - but to a miniscule degree - "harder" in some states), and don't know how to/too lazy to get one, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

 

It is beyond me, how anyone can even defend this. How is it in any shape or form, and for anyone in their right mind, a great idea to let people vote, without them being able to show valid ID??!! This screams potential for abuse.

One of my dirty little secrets, from long ago, is that I never had trouble buying bottles of booze when I was under-age, and never had to provide my name, mailing address, last four of my social security number, date of birth, etc.

 

Registering to vote requires me to do so.  Even if I were inclined to vote illegally, the incriminating evidence I would be required to provide, the probability of being caught, and the lack of any incentive to do so would dissuade me.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, FarangULong said:

If you struggle to get an ID (which is not hard at all, even though it's slightly - but to a miniscule degree - "harder" in some states), and don't know how to/too lazy to get one, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

 

It is beyond me, how anyone can even defend this. How is it in any shape or form, and for anyone in their right mind, a great idea to let people vote, without them being able to show valid ID??!! This screams potential for abuse.

Does this translate to other areas, one's that affect individual's lives much more than voting?  Then let's shut down the internet economy.  People shouldn't be allowed to open bank accounts, buy and sell stuff (including real estate), enter contracts, file taxes and many other things without providing ID cards. 

 

I'm a retired USAF officer.  I was born in Florida.  I now (when not abroad) live in Florida.  When I renewed my drivers license I was hit with multiple requirements to get a license that I could be used as a voter ID.  I was almost denied such an ID because the city's records were inconsistent as to whether the street I lived on was a "Drive" or "Avenue".  All this was happening in a government office less than five miles from the hospital I was born in many years ago.  I'm stubborn and had time to fight the issue, but how many others would decide it wasn't worth the effort? 

 

Regarding "don't know how to/too lazy to get one, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place", how many people who are too stupid or lazy to understand how the US government works are allowed to vote?  Based on the posts here, I think the number is huge.  I am still stunned by the number of people who don't understand checks and balances, or the fact that the President can launch nuclear weapons within minutes of giving the order without anyone (other than an instant, high-level military mutiny) stopping him.  It still scares me that Trump has such responsibility.  Should such ignorant people be voting?

 

One aside...senior citizens are a large element of Trump's base (not me, but others).  Retired seniors have time to follow local events and, for the most part, don't want to die any sooner than necessary.  They will know if going to crowded polling stations is risky. If the Republicans succeed in making mail in votes difficult, they may succeed in keeping an important part of their base from voting. 

 

Something to think about.  I'm not trying to give the Republican party useful advice, I'm just an outspoken and honest person. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by heybruce

[johnpetersen]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Does this translate to other areas, one's that affect individual's lives much more than voting?  Then let's shut down the internet economy.  People shouldn't be allowed to open bank accounts, buy and sell stuff (including real estate), enter contracts, file taxes and many other things without providing ID cards. 

 

I'm a retired USAF officer.  I was born in Florida.  I now (when not abroad) live in Florida.  When I renewed my drivers license I was hit with multiple requirements to get a license that I could be used as a voter ID.  I was almost denied such an ID because the city's records were inconsistent as to whether the street I lived on was a "Drive" or "Avenue".  All this was happening in a government office less than five miles from the hospital I was born in many years ago.  I'm stubborn and had time to fight the issue, but how many others would decide it wasn't worth the effort? 

 

Regarding "don't know how to/too lazy to get one, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place", how many people who are too stupid or lazy to understand how the US government works are allowed to vote?  Based on the posts here, I think the number is huge.  I am still stunned by the number of people who don't understand checks and balances, or the fact that the President can launch nuclear weapons within minutes of giving the order without anyone (other than an instant, high-level military mutiny) stopping him.  It still scares me that Trump has such responsibility.  Should such ignorant people be voting?

 

One aside...senior citizens are a large element of Trump's base (not me, but others).  Retired seniors have time to follow local events and, for the most part, don't want to die any sooner than necessary.  They will know if going to crowded polling stations is risky. If the Republicans succeed in making mail in votes difficult, they may succeed in keeping an important part of their base from voting. 

 

Something to think about.  I'm not trying to give the Republican party useful advice, I'm just an outspoken and honest person. 

Actually, polling shows the elderly turning against Trump. Might have something to do with Trump's disregard for their wellbeing during the pandemic.

[Masterton]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

I believe the Hunter Biden/Ukraine deal is less dodgy than Trump's long financial relationship with Deutsche Bank, a notorious money laundering bank, a relationship that Trump is fighting tooth and nail to keep out of the public domain.  And I believe Trump clearly demonstrated how he intended to profit from the Presidency when he doubled admission fees to Mar-a-Lago after he won the election then declared that it would be the "Winter White House".

 

Ridiculous. Deutsche Bank is the 17th largest bank in the world. So using your logic, everyone who does business with them must be involved in "dodgy" business or "money laundering" ?? Come on. Furthermore, Trump's (or anyone else's for that matter) relationship with a bank is frankly nobody's business and the "public domain" has no right to it. To suggest Trump is profiting from the presidency is laughable. He is worth several billion dollars when he became president. And judging by all the constant attention and media attacks, do you really think he would draw more attention to himself by participating in corruption? Do you really think increasing membership fees constitutes profiting from the presidency ?? Get real. You should divert your gaze towards the Democrats who have been in public office for their whole adult lives and wonder how they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. So you "believe" that the Hunter Biden Ukraine deal is "less dodgy", so how dodgy does that make it ?? The guy got $1m per year to be a board member of a Ukranian company when he had no knowledge or experience in. What about the Chinese financial deal ? What about the Iraqi housing contract that went to his brother (or whoever it was in his family) ? All these happened when Biden was point man for those countries. Even IF (and that is a very big IF) there was no impropriety, it looks very suspicious and should be investigated. Can you imagine the uproar that would take place if that happened with Trump and his son ?? Gosh man. If Trump's son came back with $50 he found on the pavement, the Democrats in the house would've impeached him again by now.

[Masterton]

55 minutes ago, johnpetersen said:

Actually, polling shows the elderly turning against Trump. Might have something to do with Trump's disregard for their wellbeing during the pandemic.

 

Yes of course, the fact that Gov Cuomo of NY signed an order compelling nursing homes to take in Covid+ patients which caused a lot of elderly people to die shows total regard to the elderly's well being. Trump had nothing to do with it, and to suggest he deliberately disregarded anyone's well being is false and rather sick actually. 

[Masterton]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

However the issue of the moment is vote by mail.  Many states allow it for anyone who is registered to vote to request a mail ballot.  To register and request a mail ballot a person must give identifying personal information along with an address.  Anyone trying to do this illegally will provide ample evidence of their crime, and are extremely unlikely to influence an election outcome.  That's why numerous studies have failed to identify any state or national election in which the result might have been affected by illegal voting.

 

You are dancing delicately around the facts here. The "issue of the moment" is not voting by mail, the issue is that Democrat governments have sent out, or are in the process or planning to send out, millions of mail ballots that were not "requested" by the people they are being sent to. Do you think this was done by accident ? Trump was right to call it out. Just because you think that something is "extremely unlikely" does not mean it is impossible. In the past several Democrat politicians have voiced concerns and doubts about mail ballots as it opens up the potential for huge voter fraud. Including the dullard Jerry Nadler, video of which can be found easily. A bipartisan report by the Commission On Federal Election Reform in 2005 (chaired by a Democrat Jimmy Carter) concluded that absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. But I guess you know better than they do ??

[Crazy Alex]

22 hours ago, candide said:

Come on! A guy registered his dog and was caught. It's indisputable proof that Dems are known for cheating! ????

As you know, it's no single story that proves Democrats are known for cheating. Oh wait a minute, that's not quite right. Those right-wingers at Newsweek put the 1960 presidential election in the top 5 of rigged US presidential elections.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

Ridiculous. Deutsche Bank is the 17th largest bank in the world. So using your logic, everyone who does business with them must be involved in "dodgy" business or "money laundering" ?? Come on. Furthermore, Trump's (or anyone else's for that matter) relationship with a bank is frankly nobody's business and the "public domain" has no right to it. To suggest Trump is profiting from the presidency is laughable. He is worth several billion dollars when he became president. And judging by all the constant attention and media attacks, do you really think he would draw more attention to himself by participating in corruption? Do you really think increasing membership fees constitutes profiting from the presidency ?? Get real. You should divert your gaze towards the Democrats who have been in public office for their whole adult lives and wonder how they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. So you "believe" that the Hunter Biden Ukraine deal is "less dodgy", so how dodgy does that make it ?? The guy got $1m per year to be a board member of a Ukranian company when he had no knowledge or experience in. What about the Chinese financial deal ? What about the Iraqi housing contract that went to his brother (or whoever it was in his family) ? All these happened when Biden was point man for those countries. Even IF (and that is a very big IF) there was no impropriety, it looks very suspicious and should be investigated. Can you imagine the uproar that would take place if that happened with Trump and his son ?? Gosh man. If Trump's son came back with $50 he found on the pavement, the Democrats in the house would've impeached him again by now.

"Deutsche Bank is the 17th largest bank in the world. So using your logic, everyone who does business with them must be involved in "dodgy" business or "money laundering" ??" 

 

Your reasoning is so blatantly absurd you must be trolling.  Donald Trump had become so toxic after a string of bankruptcies than no US bank would do business with him.  Deutshe Bank, which was fined $10 billion for Russian money laundering, was willing to loan Trump millions.  Trump used these loans to make a fortune doing business with rich Russians. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/  

 

If you don't think there are appearance problems here you are blind.  Ironic coming from someone who thinks "Even IF (and that is a very big IF) there was no impropriety, it looks very suspicious and should be investigated."  You want to investigate a private citizen for what you think are dodgy dealings, but you want to treat the President as a private citizen who's blatantly dodging dealing are nobody's business.

 

"To suggest Trump is profiting from the presidency is laughable." 

 

I didn't suggest Trump is profiting from the presidency, I gave a very clear example of him doing so.  I can give others, but I'm waiting for you to finally provide real evidence to support your claim that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Edited June 21, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

You are dancing delicately around the facts here. The "issue of the moment" is not voting by mail, the issue is that Democrat governments have sent out, or are in the process or planning to send out, millions of mail ballots that were not "requested" by the people they are being sent to. Do you think this was done by accident ? Trump was right to call it out. Just because you think that something is "extremely unlikely" does not mean it is impossible. In the past several Democrat politicians have voiced concerns and doubts about mail ballots as it opens up the potential for huge voter fraud. Including the dullard Jerry Nadler, video of which can be found easily. A bipartisan report by the Commission On Federal Election Reform in 2005 (chaired by a Democrat Jimmy Carter) concluded that absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud. But I guess you know better than they do ??

"the issue is that Democrat governments have sent out, or are in the process or planning to send out, millions of mail ballots that were not "requested" by the people they are being sent to." 

 

Yeah, and banks send out millions of pre-approved credit card and loan applications, which I routinely throw in the mail.  Those credit cards and loans are a potential source of fraud, but the banks clearly think they have sufficient safeguards to prevent such fraud.  Judging by the profitability of the banks, they must be correct.

 

Studies after studies have concluded there has been no significant voter fraud.  Yet you want to make it harder to vote and prevent efforts to make it safer to vote, even though low voter turnout is already a concern.  Ironically, you also want to protect the finances of the America's top elected official from scrutiny even though there is ample evidence of financial fraud, and he has stymied every attempt to investigate his finances.

Edited June 21, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

As you know, it's no single story that proves Democrats are known for cheating. Oh wait a minute, that's not quite right. Those right-wingers at Newsweek put the 1960 presidential election in the top 5 of rigged US presidential elections.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765

Had to go back 60 years for an example.  I only had to go back to the last election for my example of Republican cheating.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

As you know, it's no single story that proves Democrats are known for cheating. Oh wait a minute, that's not quite right. Those right-wingers at Newsweek put the 1960 presidential election in the top 5 of rigged US presidential elections.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765

I read through the article and noticed it also cites the G.W. Bush vs. Al Gore case. I thought: Wow! For once, Crazy Alex linked a balanced article! ????

 

Then I read the G.W. Bush vs. Al Gore part and found out that it was actually only accusing Al Gore of having attempted to influence Republican voters! 

Then I checked the title and noticed that it was a paper by Fred Lucas, originally published in the Daily Signal, funded by the Heritage Foundation. ????

[candide]

12 hours ago, Masterton said:

All these happened when Biden was point man for those countries. Even IF (and that is a very big IF) there was no impropriety, it looks very suspicious and should be investigated.

The DOJ is controlled by Trump. If it's so obvious, why is it that the DOJ never launched any investigation? Is Barr covering up something?

[FarangULong]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

One of my dirty little secrets, from long ago, is that I never had trouble buying bottles of booze when I was under-age, and never had to provide my name, mailing address, last four of my social security number, date of birth, etc.

 

Registering to vote requires me to do so.  Even if I were inclined to vote illegally, the incriminating evidence I would be required to provide, the probability of being caught, and the lack of any incentive to do so would dissuade me.

In this day and age it is far easier to get somebodies personal information (such as what you just listed), than to get a fake ID good enough to pass trained eyes.

 

And the "best" part is, you don't even need the technical know how to steal it. All it takes, is the gift of the gab. So how exactly would you be leaving "incriminating evidence", if you chose to register under somebody else's name (roughly same age) and then vote?

 

And even if everything you - and others  - have said is true, I still fail to see how it is relevant?? How poor can you be, that you cannot afford a bit of money for ID, in a Western country? There's no way, that someone can't save up what like 50-60 bucks (if that) for a driver's license, within the span of an election cycle. And if they can't, maybe it's for the better, that they can't vote, as they'd be way too susceptible to the Democrat "we'll give you free things like Obamaphones" bs anyway... Maybe if they prioritize this month's spending on cigarettes, booze, etc. for a one off ID "purchase", they'd be fine... Never ceased to amaze me in the UK, for example, that Chavs had real cigarettes all month long, whereas 14 days into a month, I had to  start rolling (as I prioritized rent, transport to/from work, etc. over my smoking habit). But they're such poor people, and it's not even their fault...
 

Other guy, or same guy, whatever: Since when do states issue student ID? Aren't they usually issued from the universities etc. themselves? I've never heard of student ID being state issued before, but then again: not an American. I did a quick google search, and skimmed and the consensus was that student ID is not a valid proof of age (amongst other things), as it's (just like where I'm from) NOT government or state issued, just as I thought. And why the snide remark about carry permits? I have one also, and it's a government issued ID. I CAN use it, I just don't, as they're pretty rare where I'm from.

 

And my original points about mail vote fraud still stands. It's very easily doable. Doesn't even have to be double votes. Some people just don't give a <deleted> about voting, and apparently have no problem selling their mail in ballots. Which reminds me of something I forgot to mention in the original post about the mail vote fraud back home, and goes to further show how pathetic the left is, and that it will do anything to win: They lowered voting age for Presidential elections in my country down to 16 (before it was only 16 for local elections) literally JUST BEFORE the election, banking that their legions of lefty teachers etc. would do their job putting ideas in the kids' heads. And still they had to resort to colluding + cheating to win, narrowly.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/21/2020 at 10:05 AM, heybruce said:

I see; you think the requirements for voter registration should be tougher than the requirements for opening a bank account, selling a house, filing taxes and getting a refund, etc.  Your criteria would preclude a lot of men and women in the military from registering to vote, and I don't see how it would be any more secure.

 

My question wasn't a joke, it was there to identify the absurdity of your obsession with ID's.

Are you saying that voting is less important than requiring ID to drive a car legally?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, FarangULong said:

In this day and age it is far easier to get somebodies personal information (such as what you just listed), than to get a fake ID good enough to pass trained eyes.

 

And the "best" part is, you don't even need the technical know how to steal it. All it takes, is the gift of the gab. So how exactly would you be leaving "incriminating evidence", if you chose to register under somebody else's name (roughly same age) and then vote?

 

And even if everything you - and others  - have said is true, I still fail to see how it is relevant?? How poor can you be, that you cannot afford a bit of money for ID, in a Western country? There's no way, that someone can't save up what like 50-60 bucks (if that) for a driver's license, within the span of an election cycle. And if they can't, maybe it's for the better, that they can't vote, as they'd be way too susceptible to the Democrat "we'll give you free things like Obamaphones" bs anyway... Maybe if they prioritize this month's spending on cigarettes, booze, etc. for a one off ID "purchase", they'd be fine... Never ceased to amaze me in the UK, for example, that Chavs had real cigarettes all month long, whereas 14 days into a month, I had to  start rolling (as I prioritized rent, transport to/from work, etc. over my smoking habit). But they're such poor people, and it's not even their fault...
 

Other guy, or same guy, whatever: Since when do states issue student ID? Aren't they usually issued from the universities etc. themselves? I've never heard of student ID being state issued before, but then again: not an American. I did a quick google search, and skimmed and the consensus was that student ID is not a valid proof of age (amongst other things), as it's (just like where I'm from) NOT government or state issued, just as I thought. And why the snide remark about carry permits? I have one also, and it's a government issued ID. I CAN use it, I just don't, as they're pretty rare where I'm from.

 

And my original points about mail vote fraud still stands. It's very easily doable. Doesn't even have to be double votes. Some people just don't give a <deleted> about voting, and apparently have no problem selling their mail in ballots. Which reminds me of something I forgot to mention in the original post about the mail vote fraud back home, and goes to further show how pathetic the left is, and that it will do anything to win: They lowered voting age for Presidential elections in my country down to 16 (before it was only 16 for local elections) literally JUST BEFORE the election, banking that their legions of lefty teachers etc. would do their job putting ideas in the kids' heads. And still they had to resort to colluding + cheating to win, narrowly.

"And the "best" part is, you don't even need the technical know how to steal it. All it takes, is the gift of the gab."

 

How do you use the "gift of the gab" to get the last four of someone's social security number?

 

"So how exactly would you be leaving "incriminating evidence", if you chose to register under somebody else's name (roughly same age) and then vote?"

 

Yes all you have to do is identify someone who isn't registered to vote, and won't register to vote.  How can you be sure of that?

 

Then you have to give an address to mail the vote by mail ballot to.  Do you suggest using your own address, so the police will have no trouble finding you, or using the other person's address then hang around his neighborhood and check his mail after it is delivered and before he checks it himself?  Do you think you can do that without drawing attention to yourself?  Are you ready to commit that much time to the effort?  You could rent a box at the Post Office, but that would require giving identifying information.  Regardless of which approach you use, you are making it easy for authorities to catch you.

 

Then there's the benefit side of the risk/benefit calculation.  Why do this?  What are your chances of influencing an election?  You'd have to register thousands of times or more, give thousands of addresses, collect thousand of the vote by mail ballots, and hope nobody will notice, which is extremely unlikely.  Even after all this effort and risk you probably won't change the results of a state or national election.

 

It is such an idiotic crime that even idiots don't try it.  That's why studies keep showing that election fraud is close to non-existent in the US.

Edited June 22, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying that voting is less important than requiring ID to drive a car legally?

The drivers license is required to prove that you have demonstrated competence in driving to legally do so, and to make it easier for the police to verify your identity if you are pulled over.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The drivers license is required to prove that you have demonstrated competence in driving to legally do so, and to make it easier for the police to verify your identity if you are pulled over.

Can you answer my question, or not? Not interested in deflections.

[Berkshire]

3 hours ago, FarangULong said:

And my original points about mail vote fraud still stands. It's very easily doable. Doesn't even have to be double votes. Some people just don't give a <deleted> about voting, and apparently have no problem selling their mail in ballots. Which reminds me of something I forgot to mention in the original post about the mail vote fraud back home, and goes to further show how pathetic the left is, and that it will do anything to win: They lowered voting age for Presidential elections in my country down to 16 (before it was only 16 for local elections) literally JUST BEFORE the election, banking that their legions of lefty teachers etc. would do their job putting ideas in the kids' heads. And still they had to resort to colluding + cheating to win, narrowly.

Trump has been crying voter fraud since before he got elected.  He even started a commission to look into it and--surprise--found nothing.  There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the USA, whether mail-in or otherwise.

 

But honestly, if voter fraud was rampant, I'd be more worried about Republicans.  They seem much more inclined to lie and cheat, especially the guy at the top.  

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can you answer my question, or not? Not interested in deflections.

Of course you're interested in deflections.  Your question is a deflection, and a poorly worded one.  "requiring ID to drive a vehicle legally"? 

 

I think you are asking if I think voting is more important than requiring drivers to pass a test and carry a current, valid drivers license to prove they can legally drive.  Voting is essential to democracy, while driving is essential to the livelihoods of many people in the US.  It is such and apples to oranges comparison as to be meaningless.

[Masterton]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Trump has been crying voter fraud since before he got elected.  He even started a commission to look into it and--surprise--found nothing.  There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the USA, whether mail-in or otherwise.

 

But honestly, if voter fraud was rampant, I'd be more worried about Republicans.  They seem much more inclined to lie and cheat, especially the guy at the top.  

 

This is just more delicate massaging of the facts. He did not "start a commission and find nothing". The reason he "found nothing" is because a lot of the states did not co-operate and did not provide the required information to the commission. Gee I wonder why that could be ? ????

[Masterton]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

The drivers license is required to prove that you have demonstrated competence in driving to legally do so, and to make it easier for the police to verify your identity if you are pulled over.

 

You are (deliberately it would seem) missing the point when it is clear that you do get it. It seems bizarre that the Democrats do not want to verify the Identities of people voting in the elections. The reason they oppose voter ID (when you need ID in order to do most other things) is the same reason they oppose border control and immigration reform. Connect the dots. 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

This is just more delicate massaging of the facts. He did not "start a commission and find nothing". The reason he "found nothing" is because a lot of the states did not co-operate and did not provide the required information to the commission. Gee I wonder why that could be ? ????

Perhaps because the commission was asking for information that state governments considered private?

 

"Several secretaries of state, Republican and Democrat, bucked a request for sensitive data by the commission or said they would only provide limited data."

"Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a Republican, suggested the commission “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”"   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did

 

"On June 28, 2017 Kobach wrote a letter in conjunction with the Department of Justice requesting personal voter information from every state.^[5] The request was met with significant bipartisan backlash and a majority of states refused to supply some or all of the information, citing privacy concerns or state laws.^{"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity}

[Masterton]

11 hours ago, candide said:

The DOJ is controlled by Trump. If it's so obvious, why is it that the DOJ never launched any investigation? Is Barr covering up something?

 

No it is not. You are just repeating fake news Democrat propaganda. The DOJ is controlled by AG Barr. Who was appointed by President Trump and President Bush previously also. Just because the DOJ "never launched any investigation" does not imply one is not warranted, nor does it imply that they haven't, nor does it imply they still won't in the future. Maybe they can't prove any laws were broken, maybe they are still gathering evidence. Who knows? Certainly not you.