Twitter

[pgg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

C'mon guys, Elon is just taking one for the team:

 

[rowsdower88]

That takes the bite out of any response. I only ask for consistency. Even if elections are stolen you have to prove it if you are going to claim thievery. So unless you have hard proof, then it does no good to whine.

I would live with democrats winning every vote if they will just agree to reasonable voting requirements. Give an acceptable ID to verify and don't make mail in ballots so ripe for fraud. Voter ID is not racist

Hillary Clinton says, "Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election, and they’re not making a secret of it."

I would agree with a voter ID law if it didn't disenfranchise anyone from the existing system.

If you enacted a voter ID law along with a Federal Voting Holiday, Federal IDs given to every eligible voter, and uniform voting systems between the states to simplify. I could get on board with those compromises, might need to pass a gerrymandering reform too.

There are probably other problems with voter ID laws I'm not aware of, but that would be a good start at a compromise.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I would agree with a voter ID law if it didn't disenfranchise anyone from the existing system.

If you enacted a voter ID law along with a Federal Voting Holiday, Federal IDs given to every eligible voter, and uniform voting systems between the states to simplify. I could get on board with those compromises, might need to pass a gerrymandering reform too.

There are probably other problems with voter ID laws I'm not aware of, but that would be a good start at a compromise.

As I understand it, state and federal elections are administered and recorded by each individual state. A state ID in my state can be obtained at no cost by filling out a form, going to the DMV, and providing 2 forms of proof of identification. Seems like a relatively simple thing to do.

 

[rowsdower88]

As I understand it, state and federal elections are administered and recorded by each individual state. A state ID in my state can be obtained at no cost by filling out a form, going to the DMV, and providing 2 forms of proof of identification. Seems like a relatively simple thing to do.

Yeah, I'm not an expert on voter ID laws. I'll just say that people who study them seem to come to the conclusion that they can be disenfranchising to minorities.

Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes | The Journal of Politics: Vol 79, No 2

The proliferation of increasingly strict voter identification laws around the country has raised concerns about voter suppression. Although there are many reasons to suspect that these laws could harm groups like racial minorities and the poor, existing studies have been limited, with most...

www.journals.uchicago.edu

There are other similar studies and I don't think anyone on this forum should pretend to be an expert.

 

[epidural man]

LEAVE ELON ALONE!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

This made me laugh. Funny stuff.

 

[epidural man]

Here is something I think about a lot.

When I was taught about Piaget's theory of cognitive development, I remember the professor wanted us to know that many people, even educated ones, will never move past the concrete operational stage. They can reach logical conclusions and use inductive reasoning.

But they will struggle with some concepts, abstract thought, and DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

Let's use some examples.

Let's say someone states that he is curious that someone would use "republican" as a pegorative term and ask why that is.

A concrete operational thinker would reason that since there are some evil and ridiculous Republicans that are famous and in the news, that ALL Republicans are evil and ridiculous. They would then conclude that being called a Republican is an insult.

This is the same that if a group of Italians raped a bunch of girls, then assuming all Italians are rapists.

Well, I hope this review of Piaget's theory has been useful. 🙂

 

[BobLoblaw78]

lolwut? Are you serious?

Yeah. Even most liberal sites acknowledge this. This shouldn’t be news to people. I’m against election deniers both sides and I was def against trumps sore loser response.

Here is one source that leans left but there are so many more:

Yes, House Democrats have voiced objections to presidential

Rep. Lee Zeldin was one of 147 Republicans who voted against certifying election results after a mob stormed the U.S. Ca

www.politifact.com

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Yeah, I'm not an expert on voter ID laws. I'll just say that people who study them seem to come to the conclusion that they can be disenfranchising to minorities.

Those people who study ID laws should be careful telling minorities what is best for them. I think 3/4 of minorities prefer voter ID laws. If they try to tell minorities that they are incapable of getting an ID, affording one or able to find the DMV…I’m sure that won’t go over well.

 

[pgg]

Yeah, I'm not an expert on voter ID laws. I'll just say that people who study them seem to come to the conclusion that they can be disenfranchising to minorities.

Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes | The Journal of Politics: Vol 79, No 2

The proliferation of increasingly strict voter identification laws around the country has raised concerns about voter suppression. Although there are many reasons to suspect that these laws could harm groups like racial minorities and the poor, existing studies have been limited, with most...

www.journals.uchicago.edu

There are other similar studies and I don't think anyone on this forum should pretend to be an expert.

If we have to to show ID to buy alcohol or Sudafed it can't be that hard to get ID to vote.

But - every election we see pictures of people standing in line for hours to vote. That's not the case where I live. I've never had to wait more than a couple minutes to vote. But some places, maybe it really is harder for some people to vote.

 

[vector2]

If we have to to show ID to buy alcohol or Sudafed it can't be that hard to get ID to vote.

But - every election we see pictures of people standing in line for hours to vote. That's not the case where I live. I've never had to wait more than a couple minutes to vote. But some places, maybe it really is harder for some people to vote.

I wish we could all admit that in the modern era pretty much every piece of voter legislation proposed by Republicans has never been primarily about the integrity of the vote. Now, certain GOP sponsored legislation may pass that does add additional scrutiny to votes cast, but that legislation only passes if it's helpful (or at worst neutral) to GOP candidates. The primary goal of all this unnecessary legislative fluff is, you guessed it, making it harder for Democrats (and frequently minorities who are members of that party) to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

There is no clearer evidence of this than in Florida, where after decades of successful vote by mail, Republicans decided to make everyone who registered to vote by mail in 2020 register again within one cycle even though the norm was two cycles. That, and shorten the early vote by mail period from 35 days to 22 days. Why you ask? Election security? Lol, no, 2020 went swimmingly. It was for no other reason than a record number of Florida Dems voted by mail in 2020.

Redirect Notice

 

[vector2]

.

Here is one source that leans left but there are so many more:

Yes, House Democrats have voiced objections to presidential

Rep. Lee Zeldin was one of 147 Republicans who voted against certifying election results after a mob stormed the U.S. Ca

www.politifact.com

Apples to oranges. In every one of those cases the dem candidate conceded. And in every one of those cases the electoral vote count objections were purely symbolic and/or performative. There was no real ongoing controversy about who was the winner. There was no years-long Big Lie about millions of fake votes being cast.

 

[deleted87051]

As I understand it, state and federal elections are administered and recorded by each individual state. A state ID in my state can be obtained at no cost by filling out a form, going to the DMV, and providing 2 forms of proof of identification. Seems like a relatively simple thing to do.

What if I’m 90yo and blind?

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I wish we could all admit that in the modern era pretty much every piece of voter legislation proposed by Republicans has never been primarily about the integrity of the vote. Now, certain GOP sponsored legislation may pass that does add additional scrutiny to votes cast, but that legislation only passes if it's helpful (or at worst neutral) to GOP candidates. The primary goal of all this unnecessary legislative fluff is, you guessed it, making it harder for Democrats (and frequently minorities who are members of that party) to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

There is no clearer evidence of this than in Florida, where after decades of successful vote by mail, Republicans decided to make everyone who registered to vote by mail in 2020 register again within one cycle even though the norm was two cycles. That, and shorten the early vote by mail period from 35 days to 22 days. Why you ask? Election security? Lol, no, 2020 went swimmingly. It was for no other reason than a record number of Florida Dems voted by mail in 2020.

Redirect Notice

So every piece of legislation by the right is evil and cheating? You ever think that Florida is targeting the mail in vote bc that is the easiest form of cheating?

Apples to oranges. In every one of those cases the dem candidate conceded. And in every one of those cases the electoral vote count objections were purely symbolic and/or performative. There was no real ongoing controversy about who was the winner. There was no years-long Big Lie about millions of fake votes being cast.

So it started out that democrats didn’t deny. Not it just isn’t identical enough. Also note that what you just read was from a left leaning site. Now imagine what the right leaning organizations would say. You guys need exposure to a wider mix of news. It seems as if you guys hear the same one sided sources.

 

[rowsdower88]

Those people who study ID laws should be careful telling minorities what is best for them. I think 3/4 of minorities prefer voter ID laws. If they try to tell minorities that they are incapable of getting an ID, affording one or able to find the DMV…I’m sure that won’t go over well.

No one is "telling minorities what is best for them". I'm saying that as a consequence of enacting the laws YOU want, fewer black and latinx voters come out. I'm not willing to speculate why because I haven't read the studies and neither have you.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

What if I’m 90yo and blind?

What if you’re 127 and dead….then you’re voting dem. I kid, I kid.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

No one is "telling minorities what is best for them". I'm saying that as a consequence of enacting the laws YOU want, fewer black and latinx voters come out. I'm not willing to speculate why because I haven't read the studies and neither have you. Bold of you to just assume it's due to laziness.

You didn’t understand what I said. 75% of polled minorities support voter ID laws. So if minorities say they want it, but the “experts” tell them that they don’t want it. Well that is “telling minorities what is best for them.”

Idk what you mean about laziness

 

[deleted87051]

I live in a state where every registered voter is sent a mail ballot. My family and I sit around the table googling and discussing all the obscure candidates and ballot measures. For the last midterm, it actually took us a couple of hours to get through the ballot. Personally I prefer mail-in voting.

 

[vector2]

So every piece of legislation by the right is evil and cheating? You ever think that Florida is targeting the mail in vote bc that is the easiest form of cheating?

Yes. Nowadays, almost invariably, every piece of voter legislation passed by Republicans is done so with the goal of making it harder for the opposing party to vote.

It's very simple. More people voting is bad for Republicans, so their best strategy, in lieu of actually having popular ideas, is voter suppression.

So it started out that democrats didn’t deny.

I never said that. I'm just pointing out how dumb and misleading your false equivalence is.

 

[rowsdower88]

You didn’t understand what I said. 75% of polled minorities support voter ID laws. So if minorities say they want it, but the “experts” tell them that they don’t want it. Well that is “telling minorities what is best for them.”

Idk what you mean about laziness

I understand what you said. I'm telling you that this is a topic that is being studied. You're telling me a poll convinced you it was good idea.

Did the poll mention to participants that as a result of your proposed voter ID law, fewer minorities would be voting as a result? Do you think that would change some minds of those participating in the poll? Did the poll mention how low voter fraud is and that even with voter ID it's unlikely to lower it further? Polling doesn't capture nuance like that and it's not meant to inform, especially on a fringe issue that isn't salient to most people. You would know this if you've ever tried to conduct polling.

The experts aren't "telling minorities what's best for them" they're studying a phenomena associated with voter ID laws and presenting their conclusions. If someone who is better informed on the consequences of a given action presents that to someone else and it changes their opinion, that's not "telling them what's best for them", it's enabling them to make a more informed choice.

If you want your voter ID laws and don't care that as a result minorities will be voting less, own it man. Just say that. Don't make it out to be like you're sticking up for the supposed democratic will of minorities.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I understand what you said. I'm telling you that this is a topic that is being studied. You're telling me a poll convinced you it was good idea.

Did the poll mention to participants that as a result of your proposed voter ID law, fewer minorities would be voting as a result? Do you think that would change some minds of those participating in the poll? Did the poll mention how low voter fraud is and that even with voter ID it's unlikely to lower it further? Polling doesn't capture nuance like that and it's not meant to inform, especially on a fringe issue that isn't salient to most people. You would know this if you've ever tried to conduct polling.

The experts aren't "telling minorities what's best for them" they're studying a phenomena associated with voter ID laws and presenting their conclusions. If someone who is better informed on the consequences of a given action presents that to someone else and it changes their opinion, that's not "telling them what's best for them", it's enabling them to make a more informed choice.

If you want your voter ID laws and don't care that as a result minorities will be voting less, own it man. Just say that. Don't make it out to be like you're sticking up for the supposed democratic will of minorities.

A poll didn’t convince me. Common sense did. The rest of the world also agrees bc voter ID is the norm.

Thanks for telling me I just want to oppress minorities. And they want to oppress themselves. And the rest of the world does too. And the Georgia vote was suppressed as well. You swallow while whatever propaganda they feed you. You are supporting that only minorities are so easily controlled by republicans asking for ID’s. Keep saying it but it doesn’t make sense. I will continue to think for myself.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

 

[Onefellswoop87]

The past page worth of exchange is a really interesting view into smart/manipulative arguing. @BobLoblaw78 takes a stance that Democrats should call out their own denying elections, so a poster calls his bluff and says “show me and I’ll condemn it.” To which he says that takes the bite out of any condemnation if I show you. (That’s like when my sister and I were in middle school, she’d get mad and tell me “if I have to explain why to you, it’s not worth it!” proving it’s all bluster.)

Then the bait and switch - but how about those voter ID laws? Just support voter ID laws and I'll let it go that there is no democrat pushing election big lie conspiracies.

Oh, and then he says ”experts tell minorities” they don’t want voter ID, which is bad to speak for that group. And then says 75% of minorities all want voter ID. Thanks for speaking for them. I’ve never seen such statistics that group alllllllllll minorities together, let alone to reach that conclusion. Maybe it exists, but I’m skeptical.

Thanks for the fun.

But regarding voter ID laws: Great GOP symbolic answer-in-search-of-question that rallies voters. But outside of your feelings, what’s the point of them the laws? If there isn’t widespread fraud (widespread meaning, to me, it would have any substantial fraudulent impact on any vote to alter outcome), then the cost per person and on the system in addition to the added hurdle to voting is likely overall a net negative if implemented.

 

[rowsdower88]

The past page worth of exchange is a really interesting view into smart/manipulative arguing. @BobLoblaw78 takes a stance that Democrats should call out their own denying elections, so a poster calls his bluff and says “show me and I’ll condemn it.” To which he says that takes the bite out of any condemnation if I show you. (That’s like when my sister and I were in middle school, she’d get mad and tell me “if I have to explain why to you, it’s not worth it!” proving it’s all bluster.)

Then the bait and switch - but how about those voter ID laws? Just support voter ID laws and I'll let it go that there is no democrat pushing election big lie conspiracies.

Oh, and then he says ”experts tell minorities” they don’t want voter ID, which is bad to speak for that group. And then says 75% of minorities all want voter ID. Thanks for speaking for them. I’ve never seen such statistics that group alllllllllll minorities together, let alone to reach that conclusion. Maybe it exists, but I’m skeptical.

Thanks for the fun.

But regarding voter ID laws: Great GOP symbolic answer-in-search-of-question that rallies voters. But outside of your feelings, what’s the point of them the laws? If there isn’t widespread fraud (widespread meaning, to me, it would have any substantial fraudulent impact on any vote to alter outcome), then the cost per person and on the system in addition to the added hurdle to voting is likely overall a net negative if implemented.

He'll keep thinking for himself, it's just a coincidence that his preferred policy position disenfranchises black and brown people. /s

Not to do his work for him, but he could just say "Hey, I was unaware that this would be a potential consequence for this policy change. I'm not in favor of disenfranchising some of my fellow Americans. I still think voter ID is important for X, Y, Z reasons though. I should do some more research and explore not only why my policy position results in this outcome but also if there is any research from our country about how to mitigate this negative effect."

If he's actually interested in making sure minorities, the poor and the elderly don't get harmed by his policy position that is.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

The past page worth of exchange is a really interesting view into smart/manipulative arguing. @BobLoblaw78 takes a stance that Democrats should call out their own denying elections, so a poster calls his bluff and says “show me and I’ll condemn it.” To which he says that takes the bite out of any condemnation if I show you. (That’s like when my sister and I were in middle school, she’d get mad and tell me “if I have to explain why to you, it’s not worth it!” proving it’s all bluster.)

I assume you are trying to share your view to me and others while possibly finding some common ground. I assume that bc that is what I am doing. My stance and goal is to dial down the vitriol that is spewed. I think you are projecting your style and tone to my words when I am way more agreeable. For instance, I never said that takes the bite out of condemnation (I said 'response' and was referring to his response not my response). What I was saying is "Wow! You said you would call out your side as well! That is refreshing bc I too call out both sides for denying elections! We have some common ground." I then proceed to say that even if the right believes elections are stolen, they shouldn't say anything without hard proof.

I can give you proof. Actually, I did give you proof that was even from the left. If I sample from the right leaning media, it will be an avalanche but I fear you would totally ignore anything other than left leaning. (Names: Hillary, Gore, Abrams, Waters, etc)

Then the bait and switch - but how about those voter ID laws? Just support voter ID laws and I'll let it go that there is no democrat pushing election big lie conspiracies.

No. I am finding even more common ground. I say "You know what? If the majority of US citizens actually do want democrats and America elects 100% democrats and no republicans hold an office then I can live with that. Just as long as I am confident that the process was legit and that it truly is the majority of real voters."

Oh, and then he says ”experts tell minorities” they don’t want voter ID, which is bad to speak for that group. And then says 75% of minorities all want voter ID. Thanks for speaking for them. I’ve never seen such statistics that group alllllllllll minorities together, let alone to reach that conclusion. Maybe it exists, but I’m skeptical.

I will try to find the data for you. I just ask that you try to be open-minded and not assume the worst of me and my motives. Maybe even apologize if you find that you were mistaken. (I say the apology part in jest bc I really don't need it to sleep at night)

But regarding voter ID laws: Great GOP symbolic answer-in-search-of-question that rallies voters. But outside of your feelings, what’s the point of them the laws? If there isn’t widespread fraud (widespread meaning, to me, it would have any substantial fraudulent impact on any vote to alter outcome), then the cost per person and on the system in addition to the added hurdle to voting is likely overall a net negative if implemented.

I have to go off of feelings, my human nature and others human nature. I can understand people wanting to get power. Actually I expect people to try and steal power. Look at hospital admin. Try to take power from physicians and control. Look at NP/CRNA/PA groups- all try to take power that previously wasn't theirs. Countries, political parties, etc, etc. People try to steal power. So the long-winded answer to what is the point-- to keep political groups from stealing votes and power. The easiest way for politicians to take power is to steal a vote. Which diminishes everyones vote. The ballot box is the obvious location to steal the vote (why do you rob banks, bc thats where the money is).

If you honestly believe that SBF (crypto guy), big business, Soros, Griffin, megaPACS, etc are putting 100's of millions of dollars to swaying votes but none of them are willing to try to tip the ballot scales... then you have more faith in these people than I do.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

He'll keep thinking for himself, it's just a coincidence that his preferred policy position disenfranchises black and brown people. /s

Ouch. Veiled accusation of racism doesn't really help. Plus, you used the assumed/snuck debate tactic of saying it disenfranchises minorities but not proving it.

Not to do his work for him, but he could just say "Hey, I was unaware that this would be a potential consequence for this policy change. I'm not in favor of disenfranchising some of my fellow Americans. I still think voter ID is important for X, Y, Z reasons though. I should do some more research and explore not only why my policy position results in this outcome but also if there is any research from our country about how to mitigate this negative effect."

I have done research. I just don’t come to the same conclusion. Not that I need permission, but people act like others are not allowed to have a different opinion.

I am skeptical of all information. Too many times that experts from surgery, ICU, ED, etc have told me something but it didn’t turn out to be true.

Again. Most of the world uses voter ID laws.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

@rowsdower88
@Onefellswoop87

Here is a poll with the data you said wasn’t true but all polls show what I said. Even the majority of dems agree with voter ID. For some reason there is a big push from “expert” and msm to not do common sense measures to prevent stealing power via stolen votes.

“By contrast, support for requiring a photo ID as a condition of voting is similar by race and ethnicity, favored by 77% of people of color and 80% of White adults.”

Eight in 10 Americans Favor Early Voting, Photo ID Laws

Gallup polling shows majority support for election-law policies that make voting easier and opposition to those that make voting harder -- with the exception of photo ID requirements.

news.gallup.com

Here is some further reading. You may not want to read it bc it is from right leaning media. Up to this point I have been using left leaning media.

Debunking the Left’s Propaganda on Voting

A Senate subcommittee last week held a hearing filled with the same old tiresome propaganda that the left has peddled for a decade to attack commonsense election reforms as a racially motivated plot to “suppress” votes. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

www.heritage.org

 

[rowsdower88]

I have to go off of feelings, my human nature and others human nature.

You actually don't have to go off of feelings. You could look at studies to make an informed decision on policy.

Like I said earlier, if you could demonstrate a way that your preferred voter ID law doesn't disenfranchise the poor, the elderly or minority populations; then I could be on board with it. I've told you how you could convince me. You're the one who wants to change the status quo, the onus is on you to demonstrate the benefits are worth the costs.

Here are three studies suggesting that voter ID laws have negative outcomes on these populations:

https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Voter-ID-Sep-2022.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X18810012

If you could persuade me that if you enacted a voter ID law that DIDN'T harm these people, then I'm probably on board! I'm not an expert on voter ID laws, but even I know that there are studies/experts that support these findings.

If you're arguing for a policy that disproportionately hurts black and brown people without even trying to correct for it... I guess I shouldn't even try being veiled and should just call it racist.

You've given me a poll (see my first post regarding why that is insufficient to change my mind) and a heritage foundation article. No studies showing contrary evidence of my claims. Can you find the survey of states that the Heritage guy cites in his article? That's the only evidence you've provided that they are non-discriminatory. "A 2019 survey of 10 years of turnout data from all 50 states found that state voter ID laws ‘have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.’ Voter ID laws are in place in numerous states like Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas because courts agreed they are not discriminatory and do not represent a tangible burden on voters."

I'll briefly explain why the Texas court's description of discrimination is insufficient for me. It's my understanding that in Texas, for a law to be considered discriminatory there isn't a consideration of discriminatory outcomes following implementation of the law, but instead the text of the law has to be on its face discriminatory. I think this is insufficient. If you want to have a further discussion on that element, you can DM me.

 

[pgg]

What if I’m 90yo and blind?

Then someone helps you. Obviously that 90yo blind person isn't a hermit living alone in the mountains.

If you truly don't know anybody, or are such a rotten person that nobody you do know will help you, a volunteer from the local party of your choice will gladly come to you, fill out the form, give you a ride, and probably provide refreshments en route and/or on the way back.

Sorry - I am sympathetic to the fact that some locales have fewer resources or polling stations and that it takes longer for people to vote there. And over time I've come around to agree with @vector2's argument that this is mostly caused by deliberate vote suppression efforts. This is a problem.

But this notion that obtaining a form of government ID in the USA is a prohibitively difficult task for anybody is just nonsense. Absolute recockulessness. Even contrived edge cases like an elderly blind person don't stand up to any real scrutiny.

The matter of whether requiring ID to vote meaningfully reduces fraud is an entirely different question. But you're crazy if you think getting an ID card - which is an absolute requirement for many other activities of daily life - is too much to ask for voting.

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

You actually don't have to go off of feelings. You could look at studies to make an informed decision on policy.

Like I said earlier, if you could demonstrate a way that your preferred voter ID law doesn't disenfranchise the poor, the elderly or minority populations; then I could be on board with it. I've told you how you could convince me. You're the one who wants to change the status quo, the onus is on you to demonstrate the benefits are worth the costs.

Here are three studies suggesting that voter ID laws have negative outcomes on these populations:

https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Voter-ID-Sep-2022.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X18810012

If you could persuade me that if you enacted a voter ID law that DIDN'T harm these people, then I'm probably on board! I'm not an expert on voter ID laws, but even I know that there are studies/experts that support these findings.

If you're arguing for a policy that disproportionately hurts black and brown people without even trying to correct for it... I guess I shouldn't even try being veiled and should just call it racist.

You've given me a poll (see my first post regarding why that is insufficient to change my mind) and a heritage foundation article. No studies showing contrary evidence of my claims. Can you find the survey of states that the Heritage guy cites in his article? That's the only evidence you've provided that they are non-discriminatory. "A 2019 survey of 10 years of turnout data from all 50 states found that state voter ID laws ‘have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.’ Voter ID laws are in place in numerous states like Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas because courts agreed they are not discriminatory and do not represent a tangible burden on voters."

I'll briefly explain why the Texas court's description of discrimination is insufficient for me. It's my understanding that in Texas, for a law to be considered discriminatory there isn't a consideration of discriminatory outcomes following implementation of the law, but instead the text of the law has to be on its face discriminatory. I think this is insufficient. If you want to have a further discussion on that element, you can DM me.

If voter ID disenfranchises the poor then why do we require IDs for other stuff like driving, air travel, alcohol, entering government buildings, etc? Doesn’t that also disenfranchise them from doing those basic activities?

 

[rowsdower88]

If voter ID disenfranchises the poor then why do we require IDs for other stuff like driving, air travel, alcohol, entering government buildings, etc? Doesn’t that also disenfranchise them from doing those basic activities?

Yes

We collectively determine what disenfranchisements are worthwhile versus which aren't. I think the ability to vote is more important than those things you listed so my standards for what is an acceptable disenfranchisement based on race/wealth/age are higher.

For pilot's licenses we require very high requirements because of the danger posed.

It's all a spectrum. The point is you need to justify the discrimination.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

@BobLoblaw78
I’ll admit when I’m wrong, as I’ve not seen such support for voter ID laws as close to 80%. But, I still think they are an answer in search of a question. What’s the point of them? How many cases of voter fraud would we be stopping if ID laws were enacting? To @pgg point, I’ll concede that it’s probably not financially cost-prohibitive, but I think we as a nation should make it easier not adding potential speed bumps to the voting process. If the speed bump theory works for crime, then I believe it works for voting. Adding incrementally small speed bumps has an effect on the outcome. And When states post that they won’t accept a college ID or a government run public high school ID for the just turned 18 year olds, I’ve gotta ask what’s the real purpose of a voter ID law? Are we really just trying to match person name to face to actual person or is it actually trying to do what the data shows and disenfranchise, not all, but some minorities and lower socioeconomic status persons?

Your argument that we need voter ID laws to stop political groups from steal votes doesn’t make sense and doesn’t hold up when you look at a lack of widespread election fraud. If without voter ID, there isn’t fraud and stealing votes, what besides your feelings, are we doing it for? Bank robbery, outside of Bonnie and Clyde, and well, that was a few years ago, is exceedingly rare, despite as you say that that’s where the money is. Most money is digital now anyways. You wanna talk about political groups making underhanded change, limit PACs and lobbying but that’s a totally separate discussion.

I’ve seen the Ted Cruz exchange before, and that’s all theatrics. A state can’t be anthropomorphisized to be racist and it’s silly to call all of its citizens racist, but policies can, intentionally or unintentionally, disenfranchise certain groups. I’m not going into specifics because I think @rowsdower88 did that well.

Meh, point out a recent election denying Democrat and I'll call them out on it.

(Emphasis yours, @BobLoblaw78 )

That takes the bite out of any response. I only ask for consistency.

I’m stumped. He asked you to point it out and then he’ll call them out, and as I read it, if you have to point it to him, it takes the bite out his response/condemnation. If that’s not what you meant, then I’m still stumped cause that’s how I interpret your short sentences there.

You brought up the following, which I don’t think price your point of left leaning election fraud or denying election results, but here we go:

Abrams - the right’s talking point cause she didn’t concede (a symbolic gesture). She brought a lawsuit alleging the way Georgia ran its election disenfranchised certain groups. I don’t believe she alleged voter fraud or changing of votes. She lost in 2018. Yeah, she ran again but she didn’t impede Kemp in office. What’s your point here?

Gore - that Supreme Court case was based originally on an automatically triggered Florida recount based on how close it was. It wasn’t Gore alleging widespread election fraud. Did I miss where he denied that Bush was deemed POTUS?

Hillary - not sure what specific issue you are talking about there by mentioning the GOP boogeyman. That she called out Russia engagement and peddling is misinformation. That was supported by multiple state intelligence offices and the GOP senate investigation. Did she allege votes were changed? No, and neither did the gop investigation.

Did those deny the election results? Did they continue to hold rallies and urge a stop the steal of the election? You say you have an avalanche of evidence but I’m not sure what you are talking about.

 

[deleted87051]

Then someone helps you. Obviously that 90yo blind person isn't a hermit living alone in the mountains.

If you truly don't know anybody, or are such a rotten person that nobody you do know will help you, a volunteer from the local party of your choice will gladly come to you, fill out the form, give you a ride, and probably provide refreshments en route and/or on the way back.

Sorry - I am sympathetic to the fact that some locales have fewer resources or polling stations and that it takes longer for people to vote there. And over time I've come around to agree with @vector2's argument that this is mostly caused by deliberate vote suppression efforts. This is a problem.

But this notion that obtaining a form of government ID in the USA is a prohibitively difficult task for anybody is just nonsense. Absolute recockulessness. Even contrived edge cases like an elderly blind person don't stand up to any real scrutiny.

The matter of whether requiring ID to vote meaningfully reduces fraud is an entirely different question. But you're crazy if you think getting an ID card - which is an absolute requirement for many other activities of daily life - is too much to ask for voting.

A lot of people who can’t qualify or have resources to participate in other activities,, eg driving, flying, buying a house, blah blah blah still have a right to vote. Many of my patients don’t have ID or a phone or a home address. They still have a right to vote.

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

A lot of people who can’t qualify or have resources to participate in other activities,, eg driving, flying, buying a house, blah blah blah still have a right to vote. Many of my patients don’t have ID or a phone or a home address. They still have a right to vote.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting people don’t have a right to vote as long as they are legal citizens.

However it’s a pretty low standard to ask someone to get an ID card. How many citizens do you think are really walking around this country without a form of identification?

Also don’t we the people have a right to a fair election? How do you really know who has voted and who hasn’t if you aren’t checking IDs?

 

[rowsdower88]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting people don’t have a right to vote as long as they are legal citizens.

However it’s a pretty low standard to ask someone to get an ID card. How many citizens do you think are really walking around this country without a form of identification?

Also don’t we the people have a right to a fair election? How do you really know who has voted and who hasn’t if you aren’t checking IDs?

The problem is that currently you and @BobLoblaw78 aren't even granting that our side has valid concerns.

I've shared 4 papers now that conclude voter ID laws lead to disenfranchising minority voters and those complaints aren't even contested. If you concede that they are disenfranchising, I have to ask why don't you care about that as much as I do?

Based on this post you contend that we have a right to a fair election. I agree to some degree. I would view it as an "unfair election" if we're enacting policies that are known to reduce turnout from minority communities.

It might be a low standard for you, but if it's disenfranchising tens of thousands of your fellow Americans then I would urge you to reconsider your position.

I haven't even brought up the notion that there exist clear ulterior motives for conservatives to champion this cause yet that are independent from "voting security". I'm just trying to get you to address our complaints with your proposals.

I think you should just own it. As I see it, the conservative position is: even though voter ID laws result in fewer minorities, transgender, poor, and elderly people voting; those costs are worth it to conservatives to improve voting security.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Here are three studies suggesting that voter ID laws have negative outcomes on these populations:

https://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Voter-ID-Sep-2022.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X18810012

Quotes from your "studies". Lol. Even the authors call it an article and not a study.

"existing studies have generally failed to demonstrate a link between voter ID laws and voter turnout among these groups. At the same time it is important to recognize that this article is far from the last word on voter identification."

You have to do better than reference these. One is about transgender and obvious confirmation bias. Another states minorities are less adept at obtaining ID's. The final is article that even states actual studies have failed to show a link!!! Ouch, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

If you could persuade me that if you enacted a voter ID law that DIDN'T harm these people, then I'm probably on board! I'm not an expert on voter ID laws, but even I know that there are studies/experts that support these findings.

If you're arguing for a policy that disproportionately hurts black and brown people without even trying to correct for it... I guess I shouldn't even try being veiled and should just call it racist.

I appreciate any attempt at being open to a mutual solution. Truly.

A policy that disproportionately hurts an ethnic group is not necessarily racist. If a law says it is illegal to be a serial killer and more white people are affected that does not equal racist. Anyone can go get an ID if they care. You are imagining the great oppressive obstacles to voting that just aren't so. If you can't be bothered to get an ID to vote, then it is obviously not a priority for you. It doesn't make it society's fault that you didn't vote.

You've given me a poll (see my first post regarding why that is insufficient to change my mind) and a heritage foundation article. No studies showing contrary evidence of my claims. Can you find the survey of states that the Heritage guy cites in his article? That's the only evidence you've provided that they are non-discriminatory. "A 2019 survey of 10 years of turnout data from all 50 states found that state voter ID laws ‘have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.’ Voter ID laws are in place in numerous states like Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas because courts agreed they are not discriminatory and do not represent a tangible burden on voters."

My poll and evidence is much more compelling imo than the 3 not "studies" that you provided. Obviously they convinced you.

FYI I noticed that you acted like I was lying about the poll and it separating out minorities, yet you failed to respond to the information you requested about that. You were blatantly wrong and didn't even acknowledge it. You just shifted the goal posts as they say

 

[BobLoblaw78]

We collectively determine what disenfranchisements are worthwhile versus which aren't. I think the ability to vote is more important than those things you listed so my standards for what is an acceptable disenfranchisement based on race/wealth/age are higher.

So you think that we ID for things that are LESS important, but not things that are MORE important?!?! That doesn't pass the sniff test (common sense test). You have this totally backwards. For example, we only ID people getting on a plane bc it is NOT that important. What???

 

[BobLoblaw78]

@BobLoblaw78
I’ll admit when I’m wrong, as I’ve not seen such support for voter ID laws as close to 80%. But, I still think they are an answer in search of a question. What’s the point of them? How many cases of voter fraud would we be stopping if ID laws were enacting? To @pgg point, I’ll concede that it’s probably not financially cost-prohibitive, but I think we as a nation should make it easier not adding potential speed bumps to the voting process. If the speed bump theory works for crime, then I believe it works for voting. Adding incrementally small speed bumps has an effect on the outcome. And When states post that they won’t accept a college ID or a government run public high school ID for the just turned 18 year olds, I’ve gotta ask what’s the real purpose of a voter ID law? Are we really just trying to match person name to face to actual person or is it actually trying to do what the data shows and disenfranchise, not all, but some minorities and lower socioeconomic status persons?

Your argument that we need voter ID laws to stop political groups from steal votes doesn’t make sense and doesn’t hold up when you look at a lack of widespread election fraud. If without voter ID, there isn’t fraud and stealing votes, what besides your feelings, are we doing it for? Bank robbery, outside of Bonnie and Clyde, and well, that was a few years ago, is exceedingly rare, despite as you say that that’s where the money is. Most money is digital now anyways. You wanna talk about political groups making underhanded change, limit PACs and lobbying but that’s a totally separate discussion.

Thanks. Could be true that fraud is not rampant. With most of the world having voter ID laws, I would appreciate it if we could. Being in anesthesia and having redundant safety measures teaches me that you should prepare for the worst. If they institute these laws and I am proven wrong about fraud, I will concede and slink back to my hole.

I’m stumped. He asked you to point it out and then he’ll call them out, and as I read it, if you have to point it to him, it takes the bite out his response/condemnation. If that’s not what you meant, then I’m still stumped cause that’s how I interpret your short sentences there.

I can own that I could've been more clear and my statement was the source of confusion. But I am telling you that I was appreciative of his willingness to call out dems for it as well and not (me) running from the discussion.

You brought up the following, which I don’t think price your point of left leaning election fraud or denying election results, but here we go:

Abrams - the right’s talking point cause she didn’t concede (a symbolic gesture). She brought a lawsuit alleging the way Georgia ran its election disenfranchised certain groups. I don’t believe she alleged voter fraud or changing of votes. She lost in 2018. Yeah, she ran again but she didn’t impede Kemp in office. What’s your point here?

Gore - that Supreme Court case was based originally on an automatically triggered Florida recount based on how close it was. It wasn’t Gore alleging widespread election fraud. Did I miss where he denied that Bush was deemed POTUS?

Hillary - not sure what specific issue you are talking about there by mentioning the GOP boogeyman. That she called out Russia engagement and peddling is misinformation. That was supported by multiple state intelligence offices and the GOP senate investigation. Did she allege votes were changed? No, and neither did the gop investigation.

Did those deny the election results? Did they continue to hold rallies and urge a stop the steal of the election? You say you have an avalanche of evidence but I’m not sure what you are talking about.

I don't think any thing rises to the level of election denial as Trump, so I am not arguing that. Trump was wrong. I applauded Pence not taking part of his charade. So I am not saying Democrats have ever risen to that level. But they have repeatedly denied results as well. Yes, Trump was worse. I am against all election denial regardless of size (assuming there is no proof).

 

[rowsdower88]

Quotes from your "studies". Lol. Even the authors call it an article and not a study.

"existing studies have generally failed to demonstrate a link between voter ID laws and voter turnout among these groups. At the same time it is important to recognize that this article is far from the last word on voter identification."

You have to do better than reference these. One is about transgender and obvious confirmation bias. Another states minorities are less adept at obtaining ID's. The final is article that even states actual studies have failed to show a link!!! Ouch, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

I appreciate any attempt at being open to a mutual solution. Truly.

A policy that disproportionately hurts an ethnic group is not necessarily racist. If a law says it is illegal to be a serial killer and more white people are affected that does not equal racist. Anyone can go get an ID if they care. You are imagining the great oppressive obstacles to voting that just aren't so. If you can't be bothered to get an ID to vote, then it is obviously not a priority for you. It doesn't make it society's fault that you didn't vote.

My poll and evidence is much more compelling imo than the 3 not "studies" that you provided. Obviously they convinced you.

FYI I noticed that you acted like I was lying about the poll and it separating out minorities, yet you failed to respond to the information you requested about that. You were blatantly wrong and didn't even acknowledge it. You just shifted the goal posts as they say

I disagree with your characterization of these studies/articles. They all arrive at the conclusion that there is evidence to suggest there is concern for disenfranchisement if not outright disenfranchisement.

I disagree with your definition of racist, but I'm not going to debate you on it. I'll just say that it is the outcomes that ultimately matter.

It was another person who specified that the poll wouldn't separate minority status. My claims against your poll were separate.

You misunderstand, it is the "right to vote" that is important relative to the other "rights" listed. We should be more critical of things that have the potential to impact the right to vote than someone's right to drive, fly, or enter certain buildings.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

The problem is that currently you and @BobLoblaw78 aren't even granting that our side has valid concerns.

I've shared 4 papers now that conclude voter ID laws lead to disenfranchising minority voters and those complaints aren't even contested. If you concede that they are disenfranchising, I have to ask why don't you care about that as much as I do?

Based on this post you contend that we have a right to a fair election. I agree to some degree. I would view it as an "unfair election" if we're enacting policies that are known to reduce turnout from minority communities.

It might be a low standard for you, but if it's disenfranchising tens of thousands of your fellow Americans then I would urge you to reconsider your position.

I haven't even brought up the notion that there exist clear ulterior motives for conservatives to champion this cause yet that are independent from "voting security". I'm just trying to get you to address our complaints with your proposals.

I think you should just own it. As I see it, the conservative position is: even though voter ID laws result in fewer minorities, transgender, poor, and elderly people voting; those costs are worth it to conservatives to improve voting security.

Fair enough. I don't want to disenfranchise any group at all. That was the meaning of my statement "I will accept any outcome as long as it is secure and accurate."

I didn't particularly like those papers. I will leave it at that.

As for the disenfranchising, it is so nebulous. What if I told you that not having ID laws discourages/disenfranchises large groups bc they now feel like their vote does not count and the election is rigged???? Does that mean we have to make that accommodation bc we don't want to disenfranchise that group?

We need to make common sense rules. And if some people don't prioritize or want to make the effort, then that is on them. They have to put forth some effort. Again, I don't want to prevent any vote from anyone.

 

[rowsdower88]

Fair enough. I don't want to disenfranchise any group at all. That was the meaning of my statement "I will accept any outcome as long as it is secure and accurate."

I didn't particularly like those papers. I will leave it at that.

As for the disenfranchising, it is so nebulous. What if I told you that not having ID laws discourages/disenfranchises large groups bc they now feel like their vote does not count and the election is rigged???? Does that mean we have to make that accommodation bc we don't want to disenfranchise that group?

We need to make common sense rules. And if some people don't prioritize or want to make the effort, then that is on them. They have to put forth some effort. Again, I don't want to prevent any vote from anyone.

That's a testable hypothesis. If you had evidence for it could change my mind. The evidence that I see doesn't support that currently.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

A lot of people who can’t qualify or have resources to participate in other activities,, eg driving, flying, buying a house, blah blah blah still have a right to vote. Many of my patients don’t have ID or a phone or a home address. They still have a right to vote.

How many people without phones, identification and a home are really upset about not getting to vote? (assuming they aren't upset bc they were getting paid to vote)

And is republican leadership so incompetent, desperate and hellbent on cheating that they are writing legislation suppressing them? (don't answer that)

 

[rowsdower88]

As for the disenfranchising, it is so nebulous. What if I told you that not having ID laws discourages/disenfranchises large groups bc they now feel like their vote does not count and the election is rigged???? Does that mean we have to make that accommodation bc we don't want to disenfranchise that group?

Wrt people not voting due to a lack of Voter ID and that being considered disenfranchising.

I would say that if you had evidence that was the case, then that would be interesting and worth considering. But you would have to contend with a few glaring confounders especially in recent history. The most obvious being President Trump's statements on voting integrity and urging his followers to sit out elections.

Even if you instituted the most robust, quadruple verified, form of voter ID... but still had Trump (or a similar figure) go out there and tell his followers not to vote because of perceived unfairness, I think you would see depressed voter turnout. Even just considering the effect his past statements have had creates problems for studying this.

My point is that such a phenomenon is difficult to study and there are much easier and realistic things we could be doing, like realizing voting fraud is exceedingly rare and our system seems to have good checks on it already.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Personally, I don't think the voter ID thing makes a difference. Consider the amount of people who don't vote every election who actually have ID's and would have no problem voting if these ID laws went into effect and yet, STILL wouldn't vote. It's a fair argument but pointless. I think that gerrymandered distracts are FAR more disenfranchising than any voter ID law would be.

 

[rowsdower88]

Personally, I don't think the voter ID thing makes a difference. Consider the amount of people who don't vote every election who actually have ID's and would have no problem voting if these ID laws went into effect and yet, STILL wouldn't vote. It's a fair argument but pointless. I think that gerrymandered distracts are FAR more disenfranchising than any voter ID law would be.

I dunno man, every little bit matters sometimes. Boebert won her re-election by fewer than 600 votes after over 300,000 cast. The small battles are important too.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Wrt people not voting due to a lack of Voter ID and that being considered disenfranchising.

I would say that if you had evidence that was the case, then that would be interesting and worth considering. But you would have to contend with a few glaring confounders especially in recent history. The most obvious being President Trump's statements on voting integrity and urging his followers to sit out elections.

Even if you instituted the most robust, quadruple verified, form of voter ID... but still had Trump (or a similar figure) go out there and tell his followers not to vote because of perceived unfairness, I think you would see depressed voter turnout. Even just considering the effect his past statements have had creates problems for studying this.

My point is that such a phenomenon is difficult to study and there are much easier and realistic things we could be doing, like realizing voting fraud is exceedingly rare and our system seems to have good checks on it already.

I am not trying to make this specific, particular case for whatever hypothetical I dreamed up. If people are so easily kept from making their vote then that is on them. I stated a hypothetical to show you that any group could make claims that are possibly true. The current claim is "minorities won't vote if you ask for ID" so please don't check people's ID (that way I can more easily cheat). I am more trying to show you that a person with bad intentions could label any setup as disenfranchising and use that to their political advantage. I don't think it is the government's job to motivate people to vote. But they should not be putting undue obstacles in their way. I do not believe identification that says you really are who you say you are is an unreasonable obstacle.

I think you are right. These phenomenon are difficult to study. There are realistic things we can do. I am not sure I agree about voting fraud being rare. I think you are told that it is rare and trust the people who are telling you this information. But these same people tell me that crime is not bad/getting worse, prosecuting small crimes is bad and that everyone feels safe. Look at Lightfoot and other places for these conflicting stories/reality. I hear this and see the evidence they have. But my eyes and ears know better. So you can bet that I don't trust their stats that they carefully curate for us.

Think on this. Election fraud has always happened in human history repeatedly. It has happened in every country many times including the US. But we have finally cracked the egg of election fraud by..... mailing out millions of blank ballots that anyone can fill out/return, by not even checking anyone's ID, and finally by having less controlled/secure elections?? Does this ring true to you? (despite the talking heads telling you it is "exceedingly rare")

 

[Gern Blansten]

What if I’m 90yo and blind?

If you are 90 years old and blind, and you want to vote, the same people who help you get food, medical care, and wipe your butt will likely be the same ones who will assist you with your civic duty of voting. I have a feeling that blind 90 year olds who prioritize voting is a low number. However, if they do care to vote, they can use the same ID that they use to access all of their other benefits that they likely receive from the government.

 

[rowsdower88]

I am not trying to make this specific, particular case for whatever hypothetical I dreamed up. If people are so easily kept from making their vote then that is on them. I stated a hypothetical to show you that any group could make claims that are possibly true. The current claim is "minorities won't vote if you ask for ID" so please don't check people's ID (that way I can more easily cheat). I am more trying to show you that a person with bad intentions could label any setup as disenfranchising and use that to their political advantage. I don't think it is the government's job to motivate people to vote. But they should not be putting undue obstacles in their way. I do not believe identification that says you really are who you say you are is an unreasonable obstacle.

I think you are right. These phenomenon are difficult to study. There are realistic things we can do. I am not sure I agree about voting fraud being rare. I think you are told that it is rare and trust the people who are telling you this information. But these same people tell me that crime is not bad/getting worse, prosecuting small crimes is bad and that everyone feels safe. Look at Lightfoot and other places for these conflicting stories/reality. I hear this and see the evidence they have. But my eyes and ears know better. So you can bet that I don't trust their stats that they carefully curate for us.

Think on this. Election fraud has always happened in human history repeatedly. It has happened in every country many times including the US. But we have finally cracked the egg of election fraud by..... mailing out millions of blank ballots that anyone can fill out/return, by not even checking anyone's ID, and finally by having less controlled/secure elections?? Does this ring true to you? (despite the talking heads telling you it is "exceedingly rare")

I try not to determine if something is true or not based on whether it "rings true" in my head. Better to check in with outside sources, helps avoid conspiratorial thinking.

It sounds like you believe voting fraud is common because there are a lot of people who are motivated to lie to you.

On a scale from 1-10, how certain are you that voting fraud is "widespread" or "a serious problem" in America today?

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I try not to determine if something is true or not based on whether it "rings true" in my head. Better to check in with outside sources, helps avoid conspiratorial thinking.

It sounds like you believe voting fraud is common because there are a lot of people who are motivated to lie to you.

On a scale from 1-10, how certain are you that voting fraud is "widespread" or "a serious problem" in America today?

That’s fine…but does it ring true? You can make your case and consider multiple data points.

I am 2/10 certain that voting fraud is widespread. That doesn’t mean I’m going to remove all safety measures and make cheating easy. You may have no proof that prisonbreaks are widespread, but I still would not leave the jail doors unlocked. For real, if either side knew they could get away with voter fraud then it would be rampant. So why make it easier to cheat?

 

[rowsdower88]

That’s fine…but does it ring true? You can make your case and consider multiple data points.

I am 2/10 certain that voting fraud is widespread. That doesn’t mean I’m going to remove all safety measures and make cheating easy. You may have no proof that prisonbreaks are widespread, but I still would not leave the jail doors unlocked. For real, if either side knew they could get away with voter fraud then it would be rampant. So why make it easier to cheat?

What is your process for saying something "rings true"? Because it sounds like all you're saying is you have a hunch it is true and you don't have evidence to confirm it. Why should I believe something you have a hunch on?

You're 2/10 certain voting fraud is widespread? It sounds like you're not certain at all that this is even a real problem. Doesn't that mean you should look into the problem more? Especially if you're trying to convince someone else it's a problem they should take seriously.

Maybe there's something else you're more certain of. On a scale from 1-10, how certain are you that increased mail-in voting has resulted in significantly increased voter fraud?

 

[BobLoblaw78]

What is your process for saying something "rings true"? Because it sounds like all you're saying is you have a hunch it is true and you don't have evidence to confirm it. Why should I believe something you have a hunch on?

I’m just trying to get your take. Not what the “experts” say, not what msm or political overlords say, not what a ucsd article says. You seem to default to what others tell you and only from one side. I think it is important to form your own opinion. Maybe you are. But make sure you’re not the guy who wears shorts outside with snow on the ground just bc the “experts”said it was going to be warm. Look out the window and see what it looks like to you.

My process of “ringing true” is to read both sides. Then judge the validity of the statements. If someone gives me “proof” with stats they gathered written by people they paid then I will take it with a grain of salt. Especially if I see contradictions to other evidence and information.

I trust medical research more than most other research. Yet we still have the Boldts and Pondermanns of the world. You act like there is no chance that someone could try to mislead you from one political side. This leads to people repeating something stupid like “minorities can’t figure out how to get an ID and you’re racist if you believe otherwise.”

Your 2/10 certain voting fraud is widespread? It sounds like you're not certain at all that this is even a real problem. Doesn't that mean you should look into the problem more? Especially if you're trying to convince someone else it's a problem they should take seriously.

I’m not certain at all that there is widespread fraud. I don’t have proof about how widespread. But there certainly will be if you invite it. I don’t need to look into a problem to take proper precautions. And I don’t need to be robbed before I start locking up my house and car.

Maybe there's something else you're more certain of. On a scale from 1-10, how certain are you that increased mail-in voting has resulted in significantly increased voter fraud?

10/10 certain that there has been increased mail-in fraud. Is it significant? How do you know if you don’t verify? What is significant? 1 vote? 600 votes? There is def been more than that.

You act like politicians are the moral saints of the world and I find the opposite to be true. That essentially none are cheating. For heavens sakes wouldn’t you want better protections to keep republicans from cheating? I think they both would and do cheat. So make it fair. Verify every vote. Make sure the actual citizens are picking our leaders. For both sides. I don’t care who ends up getting elected. I just don’t agree with setting up common sense rules.