California is already giving free IDs to illegals, I'm sorry to tell you. :(
Oh of course they are, I'm not shocked at all. At that point, I'm not sure what Voter ID on its own could do. This also gets into the argument of federal oversight over what are otherwise state-handled elections. More federal oversight is not always desirable (nor constitutional) but if a country blatantly does not give a damn like the West Coast states certainly don't, is there another option? It's why using the Census as a basis, and excluding illegals from the Census like Donald Trump wants to do, seems to be the best bet.
Our elections are all handled federally but our country is also smaller than most US states so it's far easier. We've also had this system in place since the beginning so the federal oversight is not new. As I've said, even among the most radical of idiots I haven't heard of anyone here wanting to just abolish Voter ID (though we do have some people wanting internet voting, which funnily enough would still be slightly more secure here than in America due to how our banks are already set up to work with government services such as insurance agencies).
That's sort of what it comes down to, there's many different ways to pull off election fraud, some easier and more blatant than others. The mail-in scams and voting machines are things that everyone talks about. The issues I like to bring up are ones that nearly-nobody seems to be discussing for some reason.
Even when it comes to Voter ID, it helps mitigate some stuff but someone hell-set on subverting those systems could do it with or without Voter ID. Let's not kid ourselves, if there was a Federal Voter ID mandate, California would probably hand out free photo ID to everyone, including illegals. You need something to compare the IDs against, which would probably have to be a census that excludes illegals (here's hoping Trump has luck with that).
I just worry that many people are trying to push for Voter ID as an end-all, be-all solution to in-person fraud without realizing that Voter ID doesn't fully prevent many of the issues they're worried about.
I'm sure it's a bit more complex but logistically, I can't think of any way you'd ensure this in most cases.
What we do here is we set Mail-in aside. They're only counted after the in-person election. When you vote in person, you add your signature next to your name for every ballot you accept (or your name is crossed out if you vote in another location). Either way, they know that you voted in person. Then they check the Mail-in against that.
Most American states (maybe all?) don't have a system of that kind. We have lists of eligible voters (based on the census I believe) so no registration is necessary. Since you don't keep track of that, you don't know who voted in person and can't double check the Mail-in. You could compare it to voter registrations in most regular elections but many states threw a wrench in that plan by sending ballots to everyone. And even aside for that, do any states actually mark down that you already voted in person? I haven't seen any evidence of that so far (but would love to be proven wrong). Without that, there would be no way to know that you voted in person and it defeats the entire point of what I've said so far.
Alternatively, you could put together a list of all people who voted by mail (as a friend of mine suggested), though this would require all mail-in ballots to arrive before election day (which is not going to be the case in any US state).
That's precisely my point. They'll try to subvert things one way or another. Mail-in is now the easiest path as it's so widespread. Voting machines after that. If you were to sort those things out (as I hope you will), then this becomes more important. And just like that recent article on mail-in, it's probably inconsequential in a presidential election but is often used in local elections.
Though individuals voting more than once are definitely used to try to steal elections. Let's not forget bussing and how big a scandal that was as recently as the 2016 election. You can't even verify whether someone voted in their local county, how are you gonna verify whether they voted in several? Like other forms of fraud, people will say that "there's not a lot of evidence that it happens" but how the hell would you know? The only ones getting caught have to be idiots.
A very simple (and yes, ultimately inconsequential form of fraud compared to some of the other stuff you hear, but still a possibility): what is stopping anybody from mailing in a ballot, then voting in person? Does anyone, in any state, double check this? How could they, if you don't keep track of who voted in person? I have not seen any evidence that they could double check this, or do.
Excuse the essay but I've done a good bit of reading into American Voter ID laws and there's a lot to say about what a huge mess it is. There's a lot that nobody seems to be bringing up.
To start, "it has a negative impact on minority voters" is not an argument. It's a problem with implementation (assuming it's real, which this as well as my own anecdotal evidence suggests it isn't).
All that it would imply is that you have to sort the issue out before you can implement voter ID, it's not an argument against voter ID in and of itself. It's a little like Eisenhower saying "some people might not like racial desegregation and be angry about it, so let's not bother, fuck it". You can make that argument for keeping the status quo in numerous cases, and they've done countless times.
Virginia up until recently would give you a free photo ID that's usable only for voting when you go register to vote. I'd advocate for more accessible and affordable Passport Cards ($65 for a first timer is expensive no matter who you are, you can't deny that) but you can't get much more accessible than free. And let's not forget the fact that in all states but one, there are more 18+ people with driver's licenses than there are individuals who actually go and vote, so this whole disenfranchisement argument would affect a fairly minimal number of people in the first place.
Now for the love of God, can people also please realize that Photo ID is not the end-all solution to voter fraud? I don't just mean Voting Machines or Mail-in, I mean that even a federally-implemented Photo ID implementation can be skirted around and will be implemented poorly without other security checks, which nobody is discussing. Most states with Voter/Photo ID have very poor implementations of it that I guarantee you are used for fraud.
My country in its current state (current constitution, etc) has existed since 1991, our first democratic election for this government was in 1993 and we have this all figured out. Voter rolls based on the census, you're assigned to a particular voting location based on address, additional security checks if you're voting in a location you're not assigned to and of course, Photo ID.
How the hell has a nuclear super power, biggest most powerful country in the planet not figured this out a hundred years ago? Anybody, on any political side here (even our progressives) think your election security is a fucking joke. It's kind of disgusting that this is even a discussion and it's kind of sad that just saying "hey, let's implement easily-subvertible Photo ID laws" is a controversial thing.
I get the feeling that some rich and influential people are very glad that the discussion is limited to just Photo ID instead of stricter security, because they know how to subvert your otherwise-poor Photo ID implementations and either have been doing it, or will do it when the need arises.
tl;dr You're selling yourself short by focusing on just Photo ID.
Somehow, Microsoft's search was always less biased than Google's. Maybe they didn't get paid as much by the Democrats, who knows. I remember an image comparing "Hillary Clinton is" searches on Google, Bing and Yahoo and only Google had positive auto-recommendations, Bing and Yahoo were mostly negative.
You don't have to win the state in a presidential election to shake things up. Local congress elections are huge and there's a far bigger chance to shake those up in NY, CA and OR. And even simply closing the gap in the presidential race is big. It'll get the democrats to waste money on ads in what are otherwise solid blue states (lot of money as CA and NY are hugely populous), and a smaller gap will result in shakeups in later elections as well. You close the gap now and you make them very nervous for 2024.
As was pointed out by Tim Pool, Bernie used to talk a lot about Millionaires and Billionaires. Recently, he dropped the "Millionaires" part because he became one himself. Between that, and him cucking out and supporting Hillary and Biden (no refunds lol), that's all you really need to know about Bernie.
And it's true what you say about Trump. Think about the initial 2016 frontrunners - Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Aside for maybe taxes, name any policy differences between the two. Immigration? Ha! War? Not a chance. Trump in some ways is more liberal-leaning, but it's mostly in economic elements that make sense. On other issues, such as immigration, he was more hardline than most. Even with war, Trump was one of very few anti-war people on-stage, alongside Ben Carson and Rand Paul. Even Ted Cruz, who's found his balls in recent days, constantly went on about making the sand glow green.
I understand his point. He insists that he's not a conservative, as his beliefs are traditionally liberal and that many of Trump's policies simply match that (on top of Democrats losing the plot). He's not really wrong in that.
I'm not big on labels personally, don't really care all that much as they mean different things to different people (here, the conservatives are more progressive on social issues and more focused on big cities, for example), but Tim refuses to abandon the Liberal label and let it be used by subversive communists. I can support that, they've already stolen too many names and symbols as is.
The enthusiasm is great, but you have to make it a reality as well. As far as everyone here is concerned, Biden is 30 points up in every poll. Go vote, because he might as well be otherwise.
C-Span's stream of the last day of the RNC is currently #3 trending on Youtube. They're already pushing that game on Twitter, saying that Biden's speech topped Trump's in viewership, while most likely ignoring C-Span, as well as places like OANN who probably got a good amount of views by not cutting away like Fox did.
Two thoughts:
One, the rejected ballots are being rejected for bullshit reasons and they're trying to steal the election for the democrats.
Two, the rejected ballots were rejected due to genuinely being filed out wrong. This will affect largely democrats because republicans don't trust mail in, and for good reason.
Considering we've seen confirmation of the second version taking place, I'm hopeful that we'll see a good bit more of that than. Voter suppression? You're the ones enacting it on a large scale, idiots.
As far as I've heard (so I might be wrong) many gays never really wanted gay marriage in particular, there were just issues with civil unions that were actually discriminatory. An example, since your "partner" is not officially a family member, they were often not allowed to visit you in hospital which can certainly lead to some terrible situations (people dying on their own without seeing their loved ones, isn't that exactly what's going on with Coronavirus in many places?)
I'm sure the specifics varied state to state but I know a few people told me that this was their main concern and they didn't really give a damn about marriage, that it just got co-opted by opportunists and people with a political angle to push.
That's how they'll always "get" you. Make up irrelevant info and use it as justification to dismiss a claim.
Just a hypothetical example off the top of my head: "Did a BLM member kill an innocent black protester? Mostly false."
"What's true: A person who repeatedly posted about BLM on social media and took part in the protests killed an innocent black man while shouting 'Black Lives Matter'."
"What's false: Black Lives Matter is not a legally-registered organization, therefore it is impossible to be a 'member'. Furthermore, BLM has never stated on official capacity that protesters should murder people, so the individual acted on his own discretion and BLM cannot be blamed for his actions."
They did that to Tim Pool. He mentioned that Bill Clinton was on 26 flight logs with Epstein, and got slapped as fake news because "it wasn't 26 flight logs to Epstein's island", which he never said. It's disgusting what they do.
I'm sure some also had to be "convinced".
Hey, sign your name here and pledge your allegiance to Biden and BLM, or we'll do to you what we did to Flynn. And wouldn't that be a shame?
Depends on what you mean by wealth. It's entirely possible that Donald Trump is making actual income by those means but his net worth certainly dropped, his businesses certainly suffered from this. A Forbes estimate said his net worth was around 4.1 billion before running, and 2.1 billion now. 2 billion loss of net worth, that's substantial.
What the fuck is Big Mike doing nowadays that's so important that he can't take 10 minutes out of his busy day to record a speech?
We've had at least a week since Kamala's announcement, that's at least five days to record a shitty few minute speech, with some time to edit and send it to the DNC and all that. It's not like they had professional, studio-grade production, shit was probably recorded on their laptop webcam or an iPhone.
The riots will probably swing more people for Trump than BLM would turn out for Biden.
My worry though is that this will probably be in heavily-democrat states so it won't change much, Electoral College-wise.
Meanwhile, a BLM push could swing Michigan as it was razor-thin, 0.3% last time (and of course, I get the feeling that Detroit would be quite concerned with BLM). It's all hypothetical of course but if one state's gonna swing for Biden, it'll be Michigan and getting complacent is dangerous.
Simply put, Michigan-anons have more a duty than any other state to convince friends and family to come out and vote for Trump.
It will be a peaceful protest.
Cykas? Is that a new word for Russian assets?
I knew all of you people were literal Russian nazis.
On a serious note, я знал, что знание русского языка была хорошая идея. Try watching videos from official news sources where they subtitle Putin or other Russian speakers. It's always inaccurate, in some cases in very misleading ways.
To atone for your actions, you have to bring at least two people to vote for Trump with you on election day. One for Obama, one for Romney.
Actually scratch that, make it three. Romney deserves at least two extra Trump votes.
Psst.
Install the extension "Violentmonkey" that allows you to run user scripts and add this code as an extension. I got the code from Reddit and slightly tweaked it to work on all archive domains such as .vn, .fo, etc.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/violentmonkey/jinjaccalgkegednnccohejagnlnfdag?hl=en
Just don't tell the guy who hosts archive.is, he was throwing a fit about how Brave's developers are partaking in "nationalistic rhetoric" over blocking money going to China and Russia due to fraud.
Trump should legalize Marijuana federally in October just to get everyone's head to spin.
What the fuck would they say then? That weed benefits whites more than it does blacks? That not locking up blacks for possession is racist?
Missed opportunity to put Barry on the right but it still checks out.
While not a bad solution on paper (ha, get it), it does have a few flaws. Notably, you still have to ensure that the Voter ID implementation is checked against something substantial. As mentioned in another conversation, California hands IDs out to illegals already, you know democrats will do this in any blue/purple state if there was a Federal Photo ID requirement. You essentially need a Census that excludes illegals as Donald Trump is trying to do, and you need to check IDs against that Census because otherwise illegals could still vote one way or another.
This also requires heavy restrictions on absentee voting which you'd have a hard time passing. And even if you could get those, for this to simply work, you need all absentee voting to happen early, then assemble all absentee ballots and compile a full database of all citizens who voted by mail. Then doublecheck in-person voters against this database to ensure that nobody voted both by-mail and in person.
Alternatively, the aforementioned voter list which seems to be a solid (albeit certainly imperfect) way to solve multiple Voter ID shortcomings. At that point, the whole ink thing is a little bit needless however. Either way, either method's better than the nothing you have currently.