PataOneil wrote:So you can't explain to me why you are so scared of a fictitious problem?
For the same reason other countries have more restrictive gun laws than the US.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods
PataOneil wrote:That seems unlikely. Two different topics. One is your fear of a fictitious voting problem, here in the USA... The other is another country banning guns.
Why are you trying so hard to hide your reason for being afraid of this fantasy voting problem?
PataOneil wrote:So, why are you so scared it's going to happen after two hundred some odd years of it not happening?
And the fact that it doesn't happen is a very good reason not to worry about it.
Which is why I want to know why you are so intent on making an issue of it when there are a lot of actual problems with our elections that are real.
PataOneil wrote:Who cares about elsewhere? It's not controversial elsewhere to severely restrict gun ownership. You are using a logical fallacy when you try and make such arguments. It's an informal fallacy usually called the "Bandwagon" fallacy. It's also a formal fallacy... known commonly as the "Bad Reason" fallacy.
The USA has a lot of electoral controversies. No need to make up fake ones.
Why are you so intent on supporting a fake controversy? You still haven't managed to answer that question in any reasoning way.
PataOneil wrote:It is a fake controversy because no such rings exist or have existed. Nor have I "alluded" that they exist. I asked YOU if there was that kind of problem and you acknowledged there isn't. We have laws to deal with anyone who tries to vote fraudulently... We actually identify each and every voter during the registration process. Yet you want to support this fakery while acknowledging other far more pressing electoral problems actually exist... while condoning them. Even if you are confused as to our actual electoral problems regulation and disposition.
Fairies could appear sometime in the future. Why aren't you advocating that we determine their status now?
PataOneil wrote:I have to say, it seems to me that you are trying your best to hide your true motives here. You seem concerned about something besides electoral integrity... in fact have simply dismissed the actual problems we have in that regard. All to pursue a fake problem.
PataOneil wrote:Is there something here you don't want to discuss that actually factors into this debate? Because IDing voters is a done deal.
PataOneil wrote:Yeah, I never said that. But we actually have problem with our elections. IDing voters is not one of them. We do ID voters... as I've explained several times. US election simply are not credible now... for a variety of reasons.
PataOneil wrote:It is possible... but it rarely happens in the USA... because we figure it's safer to know where the person lives than it is to trust an ID that can also be faked. That is why we do the identification at the registration level. You are mistaken if you think that voters in the USA can vote without having identified themselves.
PataOneil wrote:US elections are really bad. What is happening with Voter ID in the US is not part of the problem... it's a way to avoid the other problems... and make them worse.
For the record, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Other than personality differences there just isn't that much difference between Biden and Trump. They both serve a small rich group of sociopaths who are actively destroying our democracy... and the environment.
As far as I'm concerned everyone should be able to vote... children... prisoners... crazy people. And they should be able to vote as many times as they want. The reason I think this is better than restricting voting rights is that statistically the kooks would tend to cancel each other out. And once you put a bureaucracy in place those folks will tend to xenophobic ideas and do their best to restrict voting... based on class, ethnicity, political leanings... which in my view is worse than people voting as much as they want to... even on the same issue.
So in your view, the US shouldn't take preventive measures to keep the credibility of its election system in place, even though as I mentioned there have been other controversial elections in the past (I already mentioned 1876, I could add 1960 if you want too).
PataOneil wrote:And it has never been a problem to do it that way.
PataOneil wrote:You were just questioning me about what was possible. It's just as possible to fake an ID as it is misuse a voter registration. Doesn't solve the problem that isn't there that we've been discussing.
PataOneil wrote:Because that would be available to all sides of the vote. I'm not saying it's the absolute best way to go... but it's better than letter a human bureaucracy decide.
late wrote:While Republicans are destroying the credibility of the election process, it's utterly schizophrenic to pretend we need fake measures to 'preserve' it, when in fact it's part of the Republican war on democracy...
Btw, if by 1960 you mean the JFK win, you would be wrong. Nixon sent teams of lawyers to dozens of states hoping to find irregularities on which he could base a suit to challenge the election. He found nothing. A team of historians went over the 1960 Chicago election, and also found nothing.
late wrote:Which leaves 1876, which is ironic. It's funny because the racists got what they wanted. Looks like that is happening again..
wat0n wrote:For now.
But it's not possible to fake a fingerprint put using indelible ink, at least as far as I'm aware.
But then wouldn't it turn into a DDoS war between the different candidates?
Another story Igor. Another "white" guy[…]
6th person has bitten the dust from our premier va[…]
Not only are the Repuds suppressing the vote, they[…]
You don't need to do away with neutrality of the […]