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

[Masterton]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

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}

 

It is not relevant why the requests were "bucked", just that they were. The original comment was in response to a post citing falsely that Trump started a commission and "found nothing".

[candide]

28 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

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.

Ok, let's phrase it diffently.

Surprisingly enough, while Trumpers are unanimously claiming that there is overwhelming evidence showing that Biden is corrupt -and despite the fact that Trump was obviously very motivated to nail him-, no information has ever surfaced about any DOJ investigation into Biden.

 

[jimmybcool]

I don't see why it matters if voter fraud is rampant, proven or not.  Why in the world would it not be prudent to assure ourselves only legitimate voters have a voice in our government?  I assume everyone wants only citizens in good standing to vote in our elections.

 

Seems like requiring valid government ID isn't an onerous requirement to assure we only have valid citizens voting.  As mentioned above it is needed to drive a car, rent a car, open a bank account, fly, buy booze.  How is this requirement voter suppression?  Why does ANYONE resist this requirement?

 

Simples.  When one registers to vote provide proof of citizenship equal to that required to fly on a public carrier.  No issues.

 

If anyone disagrees provide a legitimate reason WHY?  How hard is it to get a government ID?

 

 

 

 

 

[Stadtler]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

"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.

What "office" is Deutsce Bank" running for?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Stadtler said:

What "office" is Deutsce Bank" running for?

How could you possibly miss the point of my post so very thoroughly?

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

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. 

Requiring voter ID's, and making it difficult to obtain one, is a method of voter suppression.  There are people who are entitled to vote who do have ID's deemed acceptable.  Many people don't drive, many don't have or know how to obtain their birth certificate, some don't have birth certificates, etc., yet they are legal citizens who have a right to vote.

 

As has been previously noted, voter fraud is a high risk, zero pay-off crime and there is no evidence it is a problem in the US.  Shouting about solutions to non-problems is a diversion from more important issues.

 

BTW:  Democrats don't oppose border control or immigration reform.  They oppose ineffective border control that is expensive, tramples on people's property rights, is environmentally destructive, and divert funds from much more effective border control methods such as improved vehicle inspection technology at legal ports of entry.  The only immigration "reforms" that they oppose are methods such as locking up children, kicking out Dreamers, etc.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

It is not relevant why the requests were "bucked", just that they were. The original comment was in response to a post citing falsely that Trump started a commission and "found nothing".

You asked "Gee I wonder why that could be ?" and I gave you an answer.

 

If the data requests included unjustified collection of personal private data and violated state laws, it matters why the request was rejected.  It's the difference between following the law and protecting citizens privacy, or obstructing an investigation without legitimate reason.

 

What did the commission find?  I've read a few claims that were not backed up by facts.  I would like to know if it found anything worthwhile.

Edited June 22, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

I don't see why it matters if voter fraud is rampant, proven or not.  Why in the world would it not be prudent to assure ourselves only legitimate voters have a voice in our government?  I assume everyone wants only citizens in good standing to vote in our elections.

 

Seems like requiring valid government ID isn't an onerous requirement to assure we only have valid citizens voting.  As mentioned above it is needed to drive a car, rent a car, open a bank account, fly, buy booze.  How is this requirement voter suppression?  Why does ANYONE resist this requirement?

 

Simples.  When one registers to vote provide proof of citizenship equal to that required to fly on a public carrier.  No issues.

 

If anyone disagrees provide a legitimate reason WHY?  How hard is it to get a government ID?

It is as hard to get an acceptable voter ID as state government's choose to make it.  The Republican led governments of some swing states choose to make it difficult.

[OZinPattaya]

On 6/18/2020 at 12:37 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

We might need the military to oust Biden from his basement at this rate. I lost count, what is it day 75 or 76 now? Hardly a show of charisma and strength is it?

The democratic strategy par excellence.  Become the Anti-Trump Party, develop no ideological foundation of your own--beg, borrow and steal from the hysterical fringe--back a wishy-washy careerist demagogue--and hope that endless race-baiting and appeals to emotionalism can get you through the day.

[jimmybcool]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

It is as hard to get an acceptable voter ID as state government's choose to make it.  The Republican led governments of some swing states choose to make it difficult.

I'm pretty sure every state offers the equivalent of a drivers license via the same mechanism for those that want ID and can not drive for a variety of reasons.  

 

As an alternative one could apply for a US Passport Card at a cost of $15.  

 

Just as you continue to mention there is little proof of rampant voter fraud, I see little proof of voter suppression.  People were claiming it in Atlanta recently.  Well - it is a Democrat party stronghold so who suppressed the minority vote there?  Not the Republicans.

 

I believe it is reasonable to show ID to vote.  I don't think there is rampant voter fraud but still think it is a right and responsibility to vote.  And if one wishes to responsibly vote the least they can do is bring ID with them.  It isn't as if I want to ask them some pertinent questions such as if they could pass the current immigrant naturalization test.  Which my wife proudly passed about 2 years ago.  I do think the majority of voters are woefully uninformed.  But that is something I'll just have to accept in my fellow citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rupert the bear]

oh dear the poor US voter .donald and joe,a battle of wits between 2 unarmed opponents,god help america and.......... the rest of us.

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

I'm pretty sure every state offers the equivalent of a drivers license via the same mechanism for those that want ID and can not drive for a variety of reasons.  

 

As an alternative one could apply for a US Passport Card at a cost of $15.  

 

Just as you continue to mention there is little proof of rampant voter fraud, I see little proof of voter suppression.  People were claiming it in Atlanta recently.  Well - it is a Democrat party stronghold so who suppressed the minority vote there?  Not the Republicans.

 

I believe it is reasonable to show ID to vote.  I don't think there is rampant voter fraud but still think it is a right and responsibility to vote.  And if one wishes to responsibly vote the least they can do is bring ID with them.  It isn't as if I want to ask them some pertinent questions such as if they could pass the current immigrant naturalization test.  Which my wife proudly passed about 2 years ago.  I do think the majority of voters are woefully uninformed.  But that is something I'll just have to accept in my fellow citizens.

 

"I'm pretty sure every state offers the equivalent of a drivers license via the same mechanism for those that want ID and can not drive for a variety of reasons."

 

Excellent point.  Getting a voter ID can be as easy, or as difficult, as getting a drivers license. 

 

In places where the state government wants a high turn-out, the ID offices could be made easily accessible with adequate, well-trained staff and convenient hours of operation.  While locations where the state government wants to restrict turn-out would not have these convenient offices, or they wouldn't be adequately staffed, or would have inconvenient hours of operation. 

 

Kind of the way that polling stations for voting seem to be much easier to use in some locations than others in Florida, Georgia, etc.  The idea behind voter suppression isn't to make it impossible to vote, just easier for some people than others.

 

Then there are the requirements for proving citizenship.  It's been several years, but when I renewed my Florida drivers license, in order to use it as a voter ID I had to bring in ID and proof of current residence in the form of correspondence (three were required if I remember correctly) from banks or utilities with my name and current address.  I was almost denied the right to use my license as a voter ID because the city was inconsistent in the address of my house; some records showed it was a drive, some that it was an avenue. 

 

Consider the irony of that; because of a long-standing ambiguity in government address records, a fifth generation Floridian who had been a resident for over half a century was almost denied a voter ID from an office less than five miles from the hospital I was born in.

 

I was stubborn and got my ID.  I don't know how new residents, or those without birth certificate, passport or drivers license would, or those who don't receive bank or utility correspondence at their home address.

 

If you don't think governments can make it difficult to get an ID, you have led a sheltered life.

[jimmybcool]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

"I'm pretty sure every state offers the equivalent of a drivers license via the same mechanism for those that want ID and can not drive for a variety of reasons."

 

Excellent point.  Getting a voter ID can be as easy, or as difficult, as getting a drivers license. 

 

In places where the state government wants a high turn-out, the ID offices could be made easily accessible with adequate, well-trained staff and convenient hours of operation.  While locations where the state government wants to restrict turn-out would not have these convenient offices, or they wouldn't be adequately staffed, or would have inconvenient hours of operation. 

 

Kind of the way that polling stations for voting seem to be much easier to use in some locations than others in Florida, Georgia, etc.  The idea behind voter suppression isn't to make it impossible to vote, just easier for some people than others.

 

Then there are the requirements for proving citizenship.  It's been several years, but when I renewed my Florida drivers license, in order to use it as a voter ID I had to bring in ID and proof of current residence in the form of correspondence (three were required if I remember correctly) from banks or utilities with my name and current address.  I was almost denied the right to use my license as a voter ID because the city was inconsistent in the address of my house; some records showed it was a drive, some that it was an avenue. 

 

Consider the irony of that; because of a long-standing ambiguity in government address records, a fifth generation Floridian who had been a resident for over half a century was almost denied a voter ID from an office less than five miles from the hospital I was born in.

 

I was stubborn and got my ID.  I don't know how new residents, or those without birth certificate, passport or drivers license would, or those who don't receive bank or utility correspondence at their home address.

 

If you don't think governments can make it difficult to get an ID, you have led a sheltered life.

Did you think the issue was voter suppression in your case?  Did they know your party affiliation?  I hope the answer is no.  Screw ups happen but are not based on any attempt to prevent legitimate citizens the right to vote.  In the end you sorted it out.  One time and now you are registered and have ID.  

 

And why the "sheltered life" comment.  Try to be nice.  I'm hardly sheltered nor am I "obsessed" as you previously implied.  Seems if anyone disagrees with you the passive aggressive comments come out.  Bottom line it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask a voter to have ID.  

 

Or does the right to vote supersede the reality to assure all voters are citizens?

 

 

[checkered flag]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"I'm pretty sure every state offers the equivalent of a drivers license via the same mechanism for those that want ID and can not drive for a variety of reasons."

 

Excellent point.  Getting a voter ID can be as easy, or as difficult, as getting a drivers license. 

 

In places where the state government wants a high turn-out, the ID offices could be made easily accessible with adequate, well-trained staff and convenient hours of operation.  While locations where the state government wants to restrict turn-out would not have these convenient offices, or they wouldn't be adequately staffed, or would have inconvenient hours of operation. 

 

Kind of the way that polling stations for voting seem to be much easier to use in some locations than others in Florida, Georgia, etc.  The idea behind voter suppression isn't to make it impossible to vote, just easier for some people than others.

 

Then there are the requirements for proving citizenship.  It's been several years, but when I renewed my Florida drivers license, in order to use it as a voter ID I had to bring in ID and proof of current residence in the form of correspondence (three were required if I remember correctly) from banks or utilities with my name and current address.  I was almost denied the right to use my license as a voter ID because the city was inconsistent in the address of my house; some records showed it was a drive, some that it was an avenue. 

 

Consider the irony of that; because of a long-standing ambiguity in government address records, a fifth generation Floridian who had been a resident for over half a century was almost denied a voter ID from an office less than five miles from the hospital I was born in.

 

I was stubborn and got my ID.  I don't know how new residents, or those without birth certificate, passport or drivers license would, or those who don't receive bank or utility correspondence at their home address.

 

If you don't think governments can make it difficult to get an ID, you have led a sheltered life.

Where are you coming from. You need an ID for many things from cashing a check (including Trump Stimulus checks), flying on an airplane or going by train, plus numerous other things. It's only reasonable to ask for ID unless the person wants to vote multiple times and/or out of district. Of course illegal aliens should not go anywhere near a polling station or foreign national for that matter.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, jimmybcool said:

Did you think the issue was voter suppression in your case?  Did they know your party affiliation?  I hope the answer is no.  Screw ups happen but are not based on any attempt to prevent legitimate citizens the right to vote.  In the end you sorted it out.  One time and now you are registered and have ID.  

 

And why the "sheltered life" comment.  Try to be nice.  I'm hardly sheltered nor am I "obsessed" as you previously implied.  Seems if anyone disagrees with you the passive aggressive comments come out.  Bottom line it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask a voter to have ID.  

 

Or does the right to vote supersede the reality to assure all voters are citizens?

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

Do you understand demographics?  Are you aware that young, urban, and minority voters are more likely to vote Democrat?  Do you think that Republican governor's don't put a priority on making it easy for Republican demographic areas to vote?  Pay attention to where the exceptionally long lines are in Republican held swing states in November.

 

My point is that voting can be suppressed by making it difficult to get a voter ID, and Republicans think that low turn-outs favor their party.  I don't know if they are correct in that assumption, but they challenge all initiatives designed to increase turn-out, usually be citing a fear of non-existent voter fraud.

 

No, Florida doesn't do anything as crass as asking for party affiliation when issuing an ID that can be used for voting.  All it does is set up rules that are easier to satisfy for old and settled types (more likely Republican) than young, move-to-where-the-opportunities-are types (more likely to be Democrat).  Also poor minorities (more likely Democrat) are less likely to have passports or divers licenses, and often lack an easily documented history of stable residence, making it difficult to satisfy the requirements for an ID that can be used in voting.

 

In my case the rules made it difficult for a demographic usually thought to be Republican to get a voter ID.  They're willing to live with general rules excluding some of the 'right' sort if the rules largely exclude the 'wrong' sort.

 

Sorry if you took offense at the subjunctive 'sheltered life' comment.  However people's constant insistence that the government needs be able to restrict voting in order to solve a non-existent problem is annoying.  In your case, you are now implying there is an issue with non-citizens voting.  No, there isn't. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, checkered flag said:

Where are you coming from. You need an ID for many things from cashing a check (including Trump Stimulus checks), flying on an airplane or going by train, plus numerous other things. It's only reasonable to ask for ID unless the person wants to vote multiple times and/or out of district. Of course illegal aliens should not go anywhere near a polling station or foreign national for that matter.

Have you ever voted?  If so, you know you have an assigned polling location and they will mark your name on the voter roll as having voted when you enter the polling station.  That makes it difficult to vote multiple times.

 

Yes, there are many examples of people faking an identity to commit many kinds of financial fraud, including travel under someone else's name using someone else's credit card.  That's why it's a good idea to check ID's carefully in financial transactions and travel. 

 

There is no evidence of widespread use identity fraud to allow illegal voting.  I'm not aware of it ever happening.  Voter ID is a solution to a nonexistent problem.  Also, as explained, strict voter ID requirements can be used to suppress legal voting, with the excuse that it prevents this nonexistent problem.

[jimmybcool]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

Do you understand demographics?  Are you aware that young, urban, and minority voters are more likely to vote Democrat?  Do you think that Republican governor's don't put a priority on making it easy for Republican demographic areas to vote?  Pay attention to where the exceptionally long lines are in Republican held swing states in November.

 

My point is that voting can be suppressed by making it difficult to get a voter ID, and Republicans think that low turn-outs favor their party.  I don't know if they are correct in that assumption, but they challenge all initiatives designed to increase turn-out, usually be citing a fear of non-existent voter fraud.

 

No, Florida doesn't do anything as crass as asking for party affiliation when issuing an ID that can be used for voting.  All it does is set up rules that are easier to satisfy for old and settled types (more likely Republican) than young, move-to-where-the-opportunities-are types (more likely to be Democrat).  Also poor minorities (more likely Democrat) are less likely to have passports or divers licenses, and often lack an easily documented history of stable residence, making it difficult to satisfy the requirements for an ID that can be used in voting.

 

In my case the rules made it difficult for a demographic usually thought to be Republican to get a voter ID.  They're willing to live with general rules excluding some of the 'right' sort if the rules largely exclude the 'wrong' sort.

 

Sorry if you took offense at the subjunctive 'sheltered life' comment.  However people's constant insistence that the government needs be able to restrict voting in order to solve a non-existent problem is annoying.  In your case, you are now implying there is an issue with non-citizens voting.  No, there isn't. 

Again, I have not said there is a problem with rampant voter fraud.  You however continue to assert there is a problem with voter suppression.    I like the example some give of the recent primaries in Atlanta.  Seriously?  Do the Rebpublicans really care about the primaries of the Democrats?  Seems as if they wanted to suppress the vote they'd wait until the real election not tip their hand.  And perhaps the areas most effected should look internally for failures on local government for the proper training and distribution of the voting machines.  

 

As to difficulty in getting an ID I call bullpucky on that.  Countries like Argentina, Brazil and India all have forms of ID required to vote.  Are there no poor people there?  This claim that it's too hard to get ID is really lame.   But I don't see either of us changing our minds.  I'll end here expressing my opinion.  That it isn't onerous to require a government issued ID to vote since the vast majority of legit voters in the country already have an ID.  The meme that it is used as suppression is as empty of reality as is the meme that there is rampant voter fraud.

 

 

 

[johnpetersen]

1 hour ago, jimmybcool said:

Again, I have not said there is a problem with rampant voter fraud.  You however continue to assert there is a problem with voter suppression.    I like the example some give of the recent primaries in Atlanta.  Seriously?  Do the Rebpublicans really care about the primaries of the Democrats?  Seems as if they wanted to suppress the vote they'd wait until the real election not tip their hand.  And perhaps the areas most effected should look internally for failures on local government for the proper training and distribution of the voting machines.  

 

As to difficulty in getting an ID I call bullpucky on that.  Countries like Argentina, Brazil and India all have forms of ID required to vote.  Are there no poor people there?  This claim that it's too hard to get ID is really lame.   But I don't see either of us changing our minds.  I'll end here expressing my opinion.  That it isn't onerous to require a government issued ID to vote since the vast majority of legit voters in the country already have an ID.  The meme that it is used as suppression is as empty of reality as is the meme that there is rampant voter fraud.

 

 

 

Cal itl bullpucky all you like. In Brazil and Argentina, as in Thailand, it is mandatory to have a government ID. While in India it's not mandatory, there is a huge variety of documents that will suffice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_of_India#:~:text=Identity documents of India are,of a national identity document%3A&text=Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC,the Election Commission of India

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Again, I have not said there is a problem with rampant voter fraud.  You however continue to assert there is a problem with voter suppression.    I like the example some give of the recent primaries in Atlanta.  Seriously?  Do the Rebpublicans really care about the primaries of the Democrats?  Seems as if they wanted to suppress the vote they'd wait until the real election not tip their hand.  And perhaps the areas most effected should look internally for failures on local government for the proper training and distribution of the voting machines.  

 

As to difficulty in getting an ID I call bullpucky on that.  Countries like Argentina, Brazil and India all have forms of ID required to vote.  Are there no poor people there?  This claim that it's too hard to get ID is really lame.   But I don't see either of us changing our minds.  I'll end here expressing my opinion.  That it isn't onerous to require a government issued ID to vote since the vast majority of legit voters in the country already have an ID.  The meme that it is used as suppression is as empty of reality as is the meme that there is rampant voter fraud.

You are being deliberately obtuse.  As I have repeatedly explained, there is no need to give states to power to restrict voting if there is no evidence of significant voter fraud.  I also have repeatedly explained, states can make it difficult to get a voter ID, and state governments which seek to limit voter turnout will do so.  These are not a difficult concepts, but one that you refuse to grasp.

 

I did not use the example of the primary election in Georgia, I suggested you look for where the long lines at polling stations will be in November. 

[FarangULong]

On 6/21/2020 at 10:23 AM, 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.

 

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? 

 

 

 

[...] I'm just an outspoken and honest person. 

1) I wholeheartedly agree. If it possible to open a bank account without ID, then that should be stopped. Immediately. Though I doubt that's the case. I only had an internet account once (in Britain, though, as internet only bank accounts only recently appeared in my country and the two guys who made the app became Billionaires... off topic, but still nice, and shows it's still possible to make it big, if you have great ideas, entrepeneurial ideas and the ability to work hard), and I DID have to provide ID, when opening the account.

 

2) I'm going to be 100% honest with you. I am not really a fan of Democracy. However, since I have no control over what form of dictatorship would be established in my country, I guess I have no choice but to stick with it. I'll take it over a "socialist" paradise, anyday. But I am in favour of heavily restricting voting. Now THAT would be ACTUAL voter "suppression". Imo people should have to pass exams, that they understand party/candidate programs, and potential end results (such as economic impact, etc.), before being allowed to vote. Of course it's next to impossible to actually do this in real life, but it's nice to dream about ???? . I also think it shouldn't be a right to have children. Ie introduce a point based system, with points for lack of criminal record (less deducted for misdemeanors, more for violent crimes/felonies), points given for education, income (ie thus no need for the state to basically pay for the kid's raising, but still subsidize to make having children more attractive for those, who SHOULD have them, but don't), etc. Again, another thing that will never be implemented, and IF it would, would carry a whole other host of problems/issues.

 

3) And there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody should have the right to muzzle others, and forbid them from speaking their opinion. Even if it's a stupid opinion (and I am not saying/implying, that yours is; I am blunt enough to tell you straight on, or let you know through sarcasm, satire, etc.), an anti-democratic opinion (such as my own), etc.

 

 

All that being said, if I went strictly by these views, I'd have no candidate to vote for, ever. So I have to compromise, a lot. In my book it's mostly been the choice between "evil", "lesser evil", and sometimes even "least evil", ever since I received the right to vote.

 

 

Anyway, I get what you're saying. It can be a pain in the ass, to get/renew ID. But I still stick by my guns, that valid ID (or at least give a ie 6 months period - example - for it to still be valid for stuff like voting, if it's expired) should be required to vote. Vote fraud does happen, to varying degrees, all over the World. Why leave yourself/your country open to it, when you can prevent a lot of it already, by simply demanding ID?

[FarangULong]

On 6/22/2020 at 6:37 AM, heybruce said:

"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.

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=social+engineering

 

That's how. Hackers (and fraudsters) have been using it forever, to get security related stuff and then bypass, with the gained information. People are dumb enough to fall for thick accented Indians calling as the IRS, and requesting payment in gift cards. Are you saying people wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for some American calling them up, posing as a figure of "authority" and asking them for information?

 

Some people openly and proudly admit that they don#t vote, for example. There's other ways, but I am not telling oyu everything, I don't want to give you and your partisans any ideas. ????

 

"then you have to give an adress [...]"

 

I take it you've never heard of online fraud, with people ordering stuff on other peoples' credit cards. There are ways to give adresses without being caught there too. Some do it as simple, as just intercepting the package before it arrives at the delivery adress (which matches the billing adress). That's somewhat risky of course, but they still do it, and often enough get away with it. There are smarter ways also, but again... See above @ ideas and such....

[johnpetersen]

5 hours ago, FarangULong said:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=social+engineering

 

That's how. Hackers (and fraudsters) have been using it forever, to get security related stuff and then bypass, with the gained information. People are dumb enough to fall for thick accented Indians calling as the IRS, and requesting payment in gift cards. Are you saying people wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for some American calling them up, posing as a figure of "authority" and asking them for information?

 

Some people openly and proudly admit that they don#t vote, for example. There's other ways, but I am not telling oyu everything, I don't want to give you and your partisans any ideas. ????

 

"then you have to give an adress [...]"

 

I take it you've never heard of online fraud, with people ordering stuff on other peoples' credit cards. There are ways to give adresses without being caught there too. Some do it as simple, as just intercepting the package before it arrives at the delivery adress (which matches the billing adress). That's somewhat risky of course, but they still do it, and often enough get away with it. There are smarter ways also, but again... See above @ ideas and such....

Yet, oddly enough, it was Republicans who continue to resist strengthening ballot security in the USA including opposition to a bill that would ban voting machines being connected to the internet.

Senate GOP blocks three election security bills

 

Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats to unanimously pass three election security-related bills Tuesday, marking the latest attempt to clear legislation ahead of the November elections

Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission (FEC) about foreign offers of assistance, as well as legislation to provide more election funding and ban voting machines from being connected to the internet.

But Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) opposed each of the requests.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, FarangULong said:

1) I wholeheartedly agree. If it possible to open a bank account without ID, then that should be stopped. Immediately. Though I doubt that's the case. I only had an internet account once (in Britain, though, as internet only bank accounts only recently appeared in my country and the two guys who made the app became Billionaires... off topic, but still nice, and shows it's still possible to make it big, if you have great ideas, entrepeneurial ideas and the ability to work hard), and I DID have to provide ID, when opening the account.

 

2) I'm going to be 100% honest with you. I am not really a fan of Democracy. However, since I have no control over what form of dictatorship would be established in my country, I guess I have no choice but to stick with it. I'll take it over a "socialist" paradise, anyday. But I am in favour of heavily restricting voting. Now THAT would be ACTUAL voter "suppression". Imo people should have to pass exams, that they understand party/candidate programs, and potential end results (such as economic impact, etc.), before being allowed to vote. Of course it's next to impossible to actually do this in real life, but it's nice to dream about ???? . I also think it shouldn't be a right to have children. Ie introduce a point based system, with points for lack of criminal record (less deducted for misdemeanors, more for violent crimes/felonies), points given for education, income (ie thus no need for the state to basically pay for the kid's raising, but still subsidize to make having children more attractive for those, who SHOULD have them, but don't), etc. Again, another thing that will never be implemented, and IF it would, would carry a whole other host of problems/issues.

 

3) And there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody should have the right to muzzle others, and forbid them from speaking their opinion. Even if it's a stupid opinion (and I am not saying/implying, that yours is; I am blunt enough to tell you straight on, or let you know through sarcasm, satire, etc.), an anti-democratic opinion (such as my own), etc.

 

 

All that being said, if I went strictly by these views, I'd have no candidate to vote for, ever. So I have to compromise, a lot. In my book it's mostly been the choice between "evil", "lesser evil", and sometimes even "least evil", ever since I received the right to vote.

 

 

Anyway, I get what you're saying. It can be a pain in the ass, to get/renew ID. But I still stick by my guns, that valid ID (or at least give a ie 6 months period - example - for it to still be valid for stuff like voting, if it's expired) should be required to vote. Vote fraud does happen, to varying degrees, all over the World. Why leave yourself/your country open to it, when you can prevent a lot of it already, by simply demanding ID?

I'll ignore the long opinion ramble.

 

"Vote fraud does happen, to varying degrees, all over the World. Why leave yourself/your country open to it, when you can prevent a lot of it already, by simply demanding ID?"

 

As I have explained repeatedly, there is not evidence of significant voter fraud in the US, and little evidence of insignificant voter fraud.  Many states in the US have a long history of voter suppression, and many of the states implementing onerous voter ID requirements have such a history.

 

So voter ID solves a nonexistent problem, and gives states with a history of voter suppression a powerful tool for additional voter suppression.  Do you see the problem with that?

Edited June 24, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, FarangULong said:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=social+engineering

 

That's how. Hackers (and fraudsters) have been using it forever, to get security related stuff and then bypass, with the gained information. People are dumb enough to fall for thick accented Indians calling as the IRS, and requesting payment in gift cards. Are you saying people wouldn't be dumb enough to fall for some American calling them up, posing as a figure of "authority" and asking them for information?

 

Some people openly and proudly admit that they don#t vote, for example. There's other ways, but I am not telling oyu everything, I don't want to give you and your partisans any ideas. ????

 

"then you have to give an adress [...]"

 

I take it you've never heard of online fraud, with people ordering stuff on other peoples' credit cards. There are ways to give adresses without being caught there too. Some do it as simple, as just intercepting the package before it arrives at the delivery adress (which matches the billing adress). That's somewhat risky of course, but they still do it, and often enough get away with it. There are smarter ways also, but again... See above @ ideas and such....

I've never read of hackers getting people's vote record online.  Perhaps you can provide a source showing that has happened.

 

As I explained in my post, in order to receive the fraudulent vote by mail ballot one would either have to lurk around the address it is sent to and hope to steal it without being caught, or have it sent to an address that gives away fraudster.  Both very risky methods, both to get one fraudulent ballot that will have no influence on any significant election. 

 

You edited out my conclusion:  Voter fraud is a crime so idiotic that even idiots don't engage in it.  Please explain how that is not true.

 

Edit:  In view of johnpeterson's post I will modify my conclusion.  Voter fraud is a crime so idiotic that even idiots voting in the US don't engage in it.  At least one foreign power clearly thinks it can influence or discredit voting in the US, and one party doesn't seem keen on preventing it from doing so.

Edited June 24, 2020 by heybruce

[johnpetersen]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'll ignore the long opinion ramble.

 

"Vote fraud does happen, to varying degrees, all over the World. Why leave yourself/your country open to it, when you can prevent a lot of it already, by simply demanding ID?"

 

As I have explained repeatedly, there is not evidence of significant voter fraud in the US, and little evidence of insignificant voter fraud.  Many states in the US have a long history of voter suppression, and many of the states implementing onerous voter ID requirements have such a history.

 

So voter ID solves a nonexistent problem, and gives states with a history of voter suppression a powerful tool for additional voter suppression.  Do you see the problem with that?

In fact, 5 states, where there was a Republican governor and republican legislature conducted various investigations to uncover what they claimed was rampant voter fraud. They found virtually nothing. And this suspicion about immigrants, documented and undocumented committing fraud is nuts. These people come to the USA to work. Why would they risk being caught committing a crime and losing their income? Just nuts.

[Yankeesvsredsox]

It seems like Biden has no problem with Unleashing  the military as mentioned in the article and the Obama Intel, to do  his bidding to oust incoming and possibly out going administrations!

 

Its been reported that either Biden lied  or had another memory loss moment when he spoke to George Steffinoppolis in a recent interview to what  he knew about the January fifth meeting he attended with Obama and other Intel  in the Oval Office on January 5, 2020.

“I was aware that they asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about it,” he then elaborated. I don’t think anything else.”

 

Recent  unsealed documents  from Strzok notes,  mentions Biden brought up the Logan Act in referencing Flynn!

 

I'll give Biden the benefit of the doubt ,with so many gaffs and lapses of memory that have been reported, memory loss is more likely in my opinion, then lying ,but the events are very damaging to his election hopes ! 

 

 Biden  must come out from his bunker  to explain to a Linsey Graham's Senate hearing , what  was discussed and what his role was and so many other questions that American's want asked, as Senator Rubio said, in the link below.

 

Mr. Biden you haven't won your right to send in the military just yet , apparently you got a few hurdles to jump!

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-claims-gop-concerns-about-flynn-probe-all-about-diversion-claims-ignorance-on-investigations-origins/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-raised-logan-act-in-oval-office-discussion-about-flynn-peter-strzok-notes-show

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BKOulnS3po

 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Yankeesvsredsox

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/22/2020 at 8:01 PM, heybruce said:

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.

Still won't answer the question. It's pretty simple- is voting AT LEAST as important as having to have a license to drive a car?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/24/2020 at 6:02 AM, heybruce said:

I also have repeatedly explained, states can make it difficult to get a voter ID, and state governments which seek to limit voter turnout will do so.

I fail to see why anyone should have to have special ID to vote, but surely anyone in the US can get a driver's license or suchlike, and that should be acceptable for voting.

Do you have any reliable evidence to prove that legal age citizens are being deprived of the right to get suitable ID?

[johnpetersen]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Still won't answer the question. It's pretty simple- is voting AT LEAST as important as having to have a license to drive a car?

Voting is a right. Driving is a privilege.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, johnpetersen said:

Voting is a right. Driving is a privilege.

Voting is a right ONLY FOR THOSE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO VOTE. Ergo, one should have to prove they are legally allowed to vote.

It's obvious to me that there is an agenda to allow voting by those not entitled to do so, and we all ( probably ) know what that agenda is.