OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
If we could just jail Trump, end the electoral college, stack the SC, and end voter ID we could save Democracy.
It sounds like the right solution could solve many problems, but there are so many moving parts and pieces, like everything up to the point of something like a blockchain ledger, that I wouldn't trust it to be infallible. From the client-verification side, to denial of service, to man-in-middle attacks at browser/phone/wifi/isp/code pushing to a ledge, all the way to the long-term storage or tabulation components... there are so many ways for things to go sideways that i think it would be hard for joe public to trust it.
Without paper it is hard to ultimately tie a human touch to a vote, so auditing becomes tricky too.
Theoretically authentication/verification is needed, but votes themselves are supposed to be private/secret. So do you just throw away the authentication after you've updated the ledger to ensure secrecy is kept, if so *i think* that makes auditing impossible.
Maybe i'm over-complicating. Modern tech is amazing, maybe we'll secure things one day, but we can't even secure biometric-based gunsafes.
"far"??? You're trying to make mountains out of mole hills and moving the goalposts again. Except I've already addressed it in my post about people and their motivations. One short trip for an ID that's good for 10 YEARS is just not that much of a burden. Literally. ONE office visit within their actual county covers them for TEN years. If the situation is so dire that they can't figure out a way to make one visit to an office within the county in which they live, I think they've got much bigger problems than potentially not being able to vote due to lack of an ID. This is where that little part about actually having to make some effort, literally any effort whatsoever, comes in.
Next you'll ask about getting the ID's for free again.
Mountains out of molehills indeed. Like most Dims, he knows there’s no legitimate reason for not requiring an ID to vote. None. And we know why they don’t want them and why they want unlimited absentee voting.
well duh, genius, then there'd be no reason for a MAGA to complain. But YOUR stupid ass sure would be wailing like a banshee. The idea would be to not have it lend itself to a skewed outcome for any particular desired result. The idea would be to not have a setup that engenders questionable results, which in turn engender serious complaints from either or any political persuasion
The mindlessness is stunning. Even more amazing is the inability to get past 'gotcha' levels of maturity.
FIF me. And I'll note that my polling station had accommodation for the handicapped such that they did not have to get out of their vehicle to fill out a ballot. I don't know if that's standard, but it would be helpful if it was.
How do we do it now in elections with or without paper ballots? More or less secure than blockchain?
Seems to me the voting part is what's different. Now we vote in person or mail in. The authentication process is pretty lax.
"Where do you live?"
"I live at 123 XYX Street."
"OK, here's your ballot."
Or I sign the back of a mail-in envelope.
Seems to me going on line and running through an encrypted sign in using my unique voter ID secured through blockchain is at least as good as that. And it has advantages, since the akgorithms can check to make sure I haven't voted already, aren't dead or in jail, and can make sure I'm voting in the correct district/races, and so on,
Most of what you raise as problems are after the vote. And, sure, there are problems we need to address there. But the voting part sounds like it could be better on line. And then you come to the advantages. Which are that it's easier for eligible voters to vote and harder for ineligible voters to vote, plus computers are good at counting.
🤣
Some jokes are only good for a single laugh, but this one is worthy of another. You're a hoot!
Let’s just be honest about the reason repubs and dems are for/against voter id and mail in voting. And it has abso fukin lutely NOTHING to do with “election integrity” or “disenfranchisement “ it’s 100% pure and simple that any added requirements to voting reduces dem voter turnout and anything that makes it easier helps. That’s it. Period. Both parties don’t give a rats fuking ass about anything except being the power whores that they are. If voter id reduced repub votes then they’d be against it. If mail in voting helped repubs dems would be opposed. So spare me the holier than thou bullshit.
Awwww... did 'ems get mad again???
All I'm saying is that if Trump had won with mail-in ballots, you robot partisan shitheads would be shouting from every mountain that they were essential in every election.
All you poor bastards do is play bookends. "Left-bad, right-good"... or "Left-good, right-bad." You could literally change every facet, every talking point, everyTHING and both sides would simply embrace them and keep bitching that the OTHER side is to blame.
I'm in the camp of voter ID needs to be a requirement, but I agree with everything you said here.
lol, me mad? We know it's getting under your skin when you pull out the baby talk and gay come ons and say the other guy must be mad.
I know what you said, it's right here...."Unless your MAGA candidate wins with those votes... Then, it's perfectly fine." And I said 'no shit genius, because we would have no reason to complain...but YOU sure as hell would bitch and moan .'.. And you would.
So, as I clearly explained, we are for setting the election up so that its integrity can't be questioned by ANY corner. So that neither side has any gripe. Then you try to turn that into something entirely different so you can screech and whimper and be gay some more. Can you not ever get rid of that crazy bug up your ass long enough to let a little common sense settle in so I don't have to keep repeating myself to you??
actually, it's a lot simpler than that. It's weird how we have to make things complicated just so we can rant a little.
Both sides want to get their candidate elected, just as the voters want those candidates elected. Seems pretty obvious. If you want to call that a power struggle well then sure, why not? It IS. DUH. The concern is over what is done to gain or regain power.
What we want and all we want is an election that is beyond reproach. Voter ID is a simple step in that direction, as is limiting mail-in ballots. No one is trying to use voter ID to discourage dem voting, unless those votes are improper. There is no reason for voter ID and limiting mail-in voting TO have a deleterious effect on dem voting, any more than it would on pub voting.. What it would hopefully limit is voting that shouldn't take place. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do we have to imagine all sorts of explanations for what needs no explaining?
The simple truth is that it's the whining over steps to ensure clean elections that make you wonder what the motivation for that is.
Yep, and neither side seems capable of compromise.
Ah, so what you're telling me is your cockamamie comment is merely a dream. That's what I've been saying.
Two things can be true at the same time. And, I've also made it clear I believe that there is a distinct problem with "voters" being informed or educated on more than someone having a particular letter after their names.
Someone who literally signs up the moment before they are voting, receives something automatically in the mail to fill out like a Publisher's Clearinghouse sweepstakes, or has a self-interested organization stick a ballot in front of them is likely not going to have any base of knowledge more than a Spielberg produced ad that Bidenomics works or a red, white and blue campaign sign proclaiming Trump's high character. Neither are true, but that person's vote counts just as much as the next.
Asking one to make a little effort to obtain the PRIVILEGE of voting is just a small step towards ensuring that the person also has a reason to actually vote for any given person and their actual policies. If that means it has a side benefit of slightly suppressing the potential idiot voter who takes no actual interest in voting prior to 90 seconds before the moment of signing their "X", who apparently only votes for the person who promises them the most give aways at the expense of everyone else, so be it. Everything has additional consequences to it.
What nonsense. Pretending that the right is only asking for a little effort, and calling the RIGHT to vote a "privilage" is a blatant anti-democracy distortion.
You are entitled to oppose democracy. But please don't try to pass off efforts to make voting harder - in particular, efforts to make D/poor/non-white voting harder - as good for America.
That’s true. But one side has moved so far in the extreme to their side that “meeting in the middle” is still very far to their side. You can’t move the end so far and then get pissed when one side won’t “compromise”.
I agree. Trump and his MAGA followers have taken the GOP so far to the right it has become unrecognizable, especially to those old-school Republicans who have said as much.
Don't be a jabroni. First, if you're going to quote me, at least spell it correctly.
Your take that I in any respect oppose democracy is an utter falsehood (and I'll keep saying this to any bonehead who keeps getting it wrong because they only pay attention to the stupid quotes of their party leaders about orange hitler being the greatest threat ever to our "democracy" - we don't have a democracy, we have a Constitutional Republic). Encouraging people to participate in the voting process and encouraging them to be an informed voter IS a pro not a con. However, stopping in to vote while picking up a hot dog with mustard or buy a scratch off is not the level of effort we should encourage or expect.
You are insulting the "poor/non-white young" and also assuming they are D. Expecting anyone of whatever background to reach a minimal standard of effort to exercise their PRIVILEGE of voting is not expecting too much. It's not actually hard. Guess you missed the series of posts above. Anyone in the state of NC can use multiple ID's and can easily get one for free.
People have to go to the correct store to buy a beer or a pack of cigs and, if they look a day under the age of 40, they will likely be carded. In some mysterious way, people seem to get through this incredibly herculean task. No one makes a peep about the horrible burden placed upon them in that scenario, but to exercise our most precious civic duty it somehow blocks hordes and hordes of people who are trying to do so? Poppycock.
We don't have any rights. We have very select privileges...on a good day. We don't have a right to anything. No matter how much the powers that be like to entice people into believing. If a right can be taken away, then you never truly had it.
I have stated many times in this forum that orangeman's efforts post 2020 were too little, too late and that his focus should have been on ensuring compliance and things being on the up and up prior to the election (this is part of the narcissistic behavior issue because I think his final thought was that there was no way he could lose to Biden so they didn't go all out on that front).
Thus, I am glad to see them doing things such as this.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Thus, I am glad to see them doing things such as this.
Trump and RNC sue Nevada over mail ballot deadline: ‘Clearly violates federal law’ - Washington Examiner
The RNC, Trump, and Nevada GOP are suing the Silver State over its mail ballot laws.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
That's why Dobbs was such a travesty. Most of America's history has been a history of expanding rights. Too slowly and often fitfully, but the trajectory was toward more and stronger rights. Until this Court.
The America I'm proud of has always been partly wishful thinking. But that was OK as long as it seemed to be trying to live up to our ideals. We aren't doing that very much this millennium.
Change it from partly to completely, you'll be better off. Your ideals isn't "our" ideals.
I don't have one. Wishful thinking sounds like it could be a problem.
what nonsense. As I said recently, most arguments end up being about semantics. It doesn't take much effort to understand that how you use a word matters as much or more than what a word is 'supposed' to mean.
There is a 'right' to vote in America, which is actually in practice a privilege provided to American citizens. Establishing a right does not require or even indicate a means for exercising it. It just means you have a lawful and/or moral claim to it....and that while no one can legally or morally deprive you of the right to vote, for instance, no one is legally or morally obligated to provide you with the means to actually vote.
You have the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that a gun or a means to acquire one are included. The ability to own and use a gun is a privilege which while allowing the right to be acted upon, might legally and morally be subject to limitations on that ability. If Billy Bob presses his revolver into your palm and says 'this is now yours', then you now own the gun and you have exercised that right. But if you want that Sig at the gun shop, your right to own it relies on the privilege of acquiring it. The question isn't right or privilege, it's whether privilege infringes on the right. In practice, the right and the privilege can effectively be the same thing.
It's like love and marriage going together like a horse and carriage.
The ability to exercise the right to vote is likewise a privilege and all the above applies. To be provided with the ability to vote is to be given a privilege which may carry limitations. If the privilege granted places limitations on exercising the right, it is OK. If the privilege curtails the right itself, it is no bueno.
Nice discussion, but it still isn't just semantics.what nonsense. As I said recently, most arguments end up being about semantics. It doesn't take much effort to understand that how you use a word matters as much or more than what a word is 'supposed' to mean.
There is a 'right' to vote in America, which is actually in practice a privilege provided to American citizens. Establishing a right does not require or even indicate a means for exercising it. It just means you have a lawful and/or moral claim to it....and that while no one can legally or morally deprive you of the right to vote, for instance, no one is legally or morally obligated to provide you with the means to actually vote.
You have the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that a gun or a means to acquire one are included. The ability to own and use a gun is a privilege which while allowing the right to be acted upon, might legally and morally be subject to limitations on that ability. If Billy Bob presses his revolver into your palm and says 'this is now yours', then you now own the gun and you have exercised that right. But if you want that Sig at the gun shop, your right to own it relies on the privilege of acquiring it. The question isn't right or privilege, it's whether privilege infringes on the right. In practice, the right and the privilege can effectively be the same thing.
It's like love and marriage going together like a horse and carriage.
The ability to exercise the right to vote is likewise a privilege and all the above applies. To be provided with the ability to vote is to be given a privilege which may carry limitations. If the privilege granted places limitations on exercising the right, it is OK. If the privilege curtails the right itself, it is no bueno.
You and I have an equal right to vote and to own a gun (just to use your examples). There are restrictions on these rights but the key point is that if you and I choose to exercise those rights, the restrictions we face will not be rigged to favor me over you, and vice versa.
That's not all there is to it, of course, but when we argue about these things, I think we should be able to agree on that basic principle.
We can go into it deeper if you wish, because it's easy to come up with restrictions that seem differential and therefore violate that principle, but most of them either make sense - such as saying a convicted murderer can't have a gun - or are clearly illegitimate - such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
My position on voting - as a right - is that it should be equally easy for all eligible voters to vote. Exactly how easy is something each culture will have to decide, but easy in the context of that culture.
again, more nonsense. Who said anything about requirements not being equally applied? If you have to show an ID, so do I. That's equality. Is it harder for you to get an ID than it is for me? Do I have to drive ten miles to vote and you only have to drive five?
And no, there is no restriction on those rights. You either have the right to own a gun or you don't. Same with the right to vote. We all have those rights, and others, There might be restrictions on the exercise of those rights for the reasons I gave, but that doesn't change the fact that you have claim to those rights.
A convicted murderer who may no longer be permitted to own a weapon has LOST the right, has had it taken away. That's not a restriction in the exercise of a right.. A voter or gun purchaser who must show an ID has NOT lost the right to vote or own a gun, he has met a requirement of the privilege of taking advantage of the process set up to allow him to enjoy the right. If you believe that such a privilege makes it hard to exercise a right, you're forgetting that without such a privilege, it might be impossible to enjoy the right that you have..
I'm fairly sure you aren't getting what I'm saying, so I'll try to simplify it. You send me 100 bucks for an old revolver. I am now obligated to allow you to take possession of the gun, because you have purchased the right to it; but I am NOT obligated to take it to you. I have the gun at my shack down on the bayou, accessible only by jon boat. through about thirty miles of swamp. If I agree to meet you half way, to make it easier for you take possession, are you actually going to complain that I'm infringing on your right to own the gun? Think about it. Meeting you halfway is requiring YOU to come halfway YOURSELF, but that requirement is ALLOWING you to get your hands on the gun you bought. If you don't see this, then you are the problem.
As I pointed out, having a right does not carry with it the means to take advantage of it. That's where privilege comes in, and the ability to take advantage of the election process that has been set up in various ways and in various places, are privileges. Again, the right itself does not come with a means of exercising it. If such a means is provided, by various government agencies, that does not require .anything of the privilege other than that it does not DEPRIVE one of his right.
You have the right to vote. You do NOT have the right to have a ballot sent to you and/or have someone fill it out for you and send it in.. And if you prefer to sit on your fat ass and not go to a polling place to vote, or if a ballot is not sent to you even if you are unable physically to go to a polling place, you still have the right to vote. The right to vote and actually voting are two different things, but in actual practice you can think of them the same way.
Equity vs Equality. Typical Lib talking point.
The court cases against Trump seem to be going really well. Braggs witnesses are helping Trump, Fanny got her ass slapped around. And the FBI has been caught manipulating evidence in the Jack Smith trial. Not looking good for you libs.
Similar threads
