nostrum420
Well-known member
"Dementia" we went over this.
Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
"Dementia" we went over this.
nostrum420
Well-known member
So, you're cool with constitutional rights being infringed when it's people you've painted with a broad brush?
nostrum420
Well-known member
You made a generalization about people without IDs based on the statistically few you've met. If that's not painting with a broad brush, IDK what is.
You also have no idea how much experience I do or don't have, big guy.
dixonk
Well-known member
I just don’t buy it. Voter ID is free when you register to vote which is also free. A state issued ID is all of 5 or 10 bucks. Our poor people are fat and have new iPhones...they can’t spend 10 bucks on a state ID. This is a false flag from the democrats so that they can bus in illegals and have people voting in multiple locations multiple times. What’s the democrat motto? Vote early, vote often.
All these voting fraud talking points pointed to the democrat party don’t come from nothing. The cheating is real. The cheating is rampant. And it’s really unnecessary.
nostrum420
Well-known member
You have evidence of this rampant voter fraud?
HIT4ME
Well-known member
It is fair to say he may be mistaken - although I watch the post office operate daily. I can give you a few examples of government run "services". The DMV. The Post Office. Health Care.
Come wait in a line, sit for 2 hours waiting for your number to be called so you can get your license renewed, spend a month trying to see a doctor so that they will refuse to get blood work, or try to find your missing package. Then come back and tell me how efficient and cost effective they all are and how wrong Trump is.
Amazon Prime has become a scam. It's never almost never 2 days anymore. When they used UPS - like clockwork, sometimes it only took 1 day. When they got a sweet deal from the USPS - it became 2-4 days. Good luck complaining to someone. You'll get nothing and you'll like it.
I wasn't really saying it is right or wrong. What I am saying is that the liberals are raising a big fight over this, but to the same point you are making - if it was their guy they would be rallying behind it. Your point is valid - if it is our guy we don't make a big stink, and if it is your guy we do. But that goes for both sides and I am just pointing out that it shouldn't be based on who has the idea, but on how valid the idea is.
In other words, since liberals are raising a big stink about this when it is our guy - if the idea that this is wrong is truly valid, they should be raising the same stink about it if their guy was doing it too. It's OK to disagree on what's right or wrong, but it's not OK to change your idea of what is right or wrong based on the person doing the right or wrong.
Just like my point with Trump - if you want to say everything Trump is doing is so wrong and that he is a racist, womanizing, nepotistic scum bag - well fine. But why would you put the same thing up then and claim it is OK for your guy?
And I'm not using "you" toward you, Jiigzz, because you're pretty reasonable and I think you get this, but you're bringing up good points and I'm trying to play off those and using "you" as the general opposition.
There was a video of a guy going out on the street and asking a bunch of white people about requiring voter ID and getting a lot of, "It's a racist idea designed to prevent people from voting" responses. He then went and asked black people if they had a license and they looked at him like, "Of course." Do you know any other black people who don't have a license? "No, you need a license to live!" What about people who don't drive? "You still need a license to live." Do you know where the RMV is? "Yes, it's right around the corner on XX street." Is it hard for you to get to? "No."
The voter ID thing is a prime example of racists playing the race card for their own benefit.
This is a fair criticism. We obviously have to have some form of ID available and we also have to struggle with the fact that having a national form of identification can be a totalitarian idea. You could be right that it's easy to say we should require ID - which I think most people want because it will reduce voter fraud - but the implementation may have pitfalls to overcome. But on its face, most people have ID anyway and can get state-issued ID even if they don't drive and it seems like a simple solution.
Another fair criticism. I actually do have an issue with the way the post office is run - although that doesn't mean I am against the idea of the post office. I think that Amazon is actually reaping huge benefits - which the liberals should be all over and aren't since they are the first to point out how Amazon doesn't pay taxes (even though it's all above board/legal and does make sense).
I've seen a lot of businesses go under with seemingly "profitable" deals. The big player comes in, makes an offer and the owner of the business thinks, "This is going to max out my capacity and I will be home free" and then they find out the big player takes up all the capacity in their business, pushing out other customers, and now the business is against a wall. The big player then makes demands and the business has to play along because if they lose this one big customer, they will lose everything they have left. And the big player now just has to skate the line where the business is barely viable.
This is clearly what Amazon has negotiated with the PO and it is the exact type of deal that Trump is fighting against with other countries with all of our agreements. It makes a lot of sense that he's against the way the USPS is run and the deals that are in place, etc.
Also, when my dad first retired he got a job delivering Amazon packages for the USPS on Sunday. It was ridiculous. It was near impossible to deliver the volume that was being given to him and he could be out 3-4 hours past his schedule. Think about that. Amazon is paying for an 8 hour workday and the USPS has to pay for a 12 hour workday. Tell me that is viable long term. It wasn't just my dad either, it was every driver - and the turnover for the job was tremendous, often monthly.
He also pointed out that the GPS system they used would have him on Street A, then drive 5 minutes to street B, 5 minutes to Street C, then 8 minutes back to Street A - and there was no way for him to deliver the packages out of order so that he could outsmart the GPS.
Me too - when I get my mail. But like you, it is "almost" every day. Some days I just don't get it. Sometimes it's 2-3 days and then I suddenly get a pile with things that arrived in my post office 2 days earlier but my mail carrier just didn't feel like doing my part of the route for a day or 2.
And we've complained to the local post master - and when we've gone into the post office looking for packages that were missing and people asked for our address, other employees have rolled their eyes and made comments that our carrier can be "lazy" and is a problem. But nothing has changed in at least 5 years of this.
No I haven't read that transcript - I have read the spin though. Biden clearly used government resources to put pressure on the Ukraine to his own personal benefit (protecting his son) and the twist that he can't be investigated because it would benefit the president investigating him is preposterous. That isn't asking for foreign interference or even aid in an election.
I know all the liberals want to claim that Biden did nothing wrong and he wanted the AG fired because he "wasn't" investigating corruption. But other countries had suspicions of corruption in Burisma, the AG has stated he had an open case investigating the company, and the replacement AG did NOT investigate Burisma - which logically shows that Biden wasn't trying to increase investigations into corruption and if he was it was very ineffective because he effectively reduced them. But we should believe Biden because the ousted AG is obviously not credible, he was corrupt - because he got fired.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
This thread is hilarious if only because it actually seemed to push Jiigzz over the edge into semi-trolling.
This thread has it all. I try to avoid it because it just sucks you in - and despite how it may appear at times, I don't generally like being triggered nor triggering anyone else. And it moves so fast that I go to bed and wake up and have to spend 30 minutes typing a response haha. But I do appreciate that 98% of the time people on AM can have heated debate and then go back to being civil which is actually refreshing. Disagreement is the spice of life and even when I don't wind up agreeing with something on the other side, I often learn quite a bit from these discussions.
And I find the meme's hilarious on both sides.
First off, this was investigated and he was impeached and the evidence was lacking. Unless of course you are saying there was evidence and it was found to be OK so he wasn't removed from office.
But again, the bias in your argument is equal to that of the other side - if you're against foreign intervention/interference in an election, then how are you for mail-in votes that may open the door to that very thing?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tightening up the voting system and I am not for foreign interference. And I'm sure you're not for mail-in voting fraud. But you are using one as a sword and then using basically the same thing as a shield.
And I'm not saying that conservatives haven't done the same thing...it's a tough thing to see and something I've been trying to find in myself a lot lately - where am I being biased toward my own party just because it's my "party" - and am I actually being true to the ideals that should be embodied by my party?
In other words, I'm biased, I admit it.
dixonk
Well-known member
nostrum420
Well-known member
Oof, heritage foundation but I'll still take a look.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
This is simply NOT true. The idea of voter suppression has been shown numerous times to be a myth, the studies showing that poor people and minorities are hurt by voter ID requirements have repeatedly called into question and unable to hold up to even minor scrutiny.
Maybe the reason 1 party really wants it everywhere is because they are sick of the other side cheating. Like you say, it may be a myth but so is the idea of voter suppression that you keep referring to.
Don't you see this as an argument against the idea that poor people don't have IDs? I mean, if you are poor and you can get an ID for $10 - how many times are you going to be brought down to the station before you decide, "Screw this, I am going to come up with $10."
Many, many poor people have ID. Most. If you're worried about the suppression of a few people who may not have ID (which I'm OK agreeing with) - then why aren't you worried about the "insignificant" voter fraud you are speaking about? Why is one big enough to be an obstacle, but the other not big enough to worry about, when the scale is probably similar?
I must have forgot.
So, did you guys decide that he definitely has it? Because all I can say is that my grandmother had some light dementia at the end of her life, a family friend has alzheimer's - and the similarities when he speaks are eerie. Especially the friend with alzheimer's - who has always been very graceful - he can talk to you and make you think he is completely with it because he is graceful, but then you realize he doesn't really know that you are not a stranger that he is being polite to.
And then he realizes he lost his rhythm and he laughs and acts like he was joking.
But maybe he isn't forgetting. Maybe he is with it and just a lying racist....very likely as well.
Didn't you just make a generalization about poor people not having ID to begin this?
nostrum420
Well-known member
OK even they found 1,290 of voter fraud which they admit is not exhaustive (but if you're trying to prove something maybe be exhaustive?)
1290÷328200000=.0000039305
So you're punishing good law abiding citizens for the crimes of a statistical minimal group of criminals... I know I've heard that somewhere before... where was it?
1290÷328200000=.0000039305
So you're punishing good law abiding citizens for the crimes of a statistical minimal group of criminals... I know I've heard that somewhere before... where was it?
dixonk
Well-known member
OK even they found 1,290 of voter fraud which they admit is not exhaustive (but if you're trying to prove something maybe be exhaustive?)
1290÷328200000=.0000039305
So you're punishing good law abiding citizens for the crimes of a statistical minimal group of criminals... I know I've heard that somewhere before... where was it?
Your numbers are skewed. Of the 1290 voter fraud cases how many ballots were changed, altered, destroyed, or miscounted? What result or impact did it have? We’re elections turned because of fraud? There is more to it than what that single site says.
The election between gore and bush came down to what, 500 votes? Is it unreasonable to say that if just one polling station could have committed fraud we would have had the founder of the internet as the president and not W?
thebigt
Legend
how is it punishment to require todays able bodied citizens to go to the polls to vote since this is the way it has been done for a very long time?OK even they found 1,290 of voter fraud which they admit is not exhaustive (but if you're trying to prove something maybe be exhaustive?)
1290÷328200000=.0000039305
So you're punishing good law abiding citizens for the crimes of a statistical minimal group of criminals... I know I've heard that somewhere before... where was it?
please explain punishment?
nostrum420
Well-known member
This is simply NOT true. The idea of voter suppression has been shown numerous times to be a myth, the studies showing that poor people and minorities are hurt by voter ID requirements have repeatedly called into question and unable to hold up to even minor scrutiny.
Maybe the reason 1 party really wants it everywhere is because they are sick of the other side cheating. Like you say, it may be a myth but so is the idea of voter suppression that you keep referring to.
Don't you see this as an argument against the idea that poor people don't have IDs? I mean, if you are poor and you can get an ID for $10 - how many times are you going to be brought down to the station before you decide, "Screw this, I am going to come up with $10."
Many, many poor people have ID. Most. If you're worried about the suppression of a few people who may not have ID (which I'm OK agreeing with) - then why aren't you worried about the "insignificant" voter fraud you are speaking about? Why is one big enough to be an obstacle, but the other not big enough to worry about, when the scale is probably similar?
I must have forgot.
So, did you guys decide that he definitely has it? Because all I can say is that my grandmother had some light dementia at the end of her life, a family friend has alzheimer's - and the similarities when he speaks are eerie. Especially the friend with alzheimer's - who has always been very graceful - he can talk to you and make you think he is completely with it because he is graceful, but then you realize he doesn't really know that you are not a stranger that he is being polite to.
And then he realizes he lost his rhythm and he laughs and acts like he was joking.
But maybe he isn't forgetting. Maybe he is with it and just a lying racist....very likely as well.
Didn't you just make a generalization about poor people not having ID to begin this?
Voting is a right and it's the governments job to protect the rights of all of its citizens. If an ID is required an ID should be issued.
Based on my experience, Biden and Trump are both in decline and at pretty close to the same level. Like you alludedto in your example, Biden's symptoms are just easier to spot.
I can find the citations for poor people not being the ones to have ID but I reeeeally wish everyone were asked for evidence as often as I am.
Do I think voter suppression and voter fraud are our most important issues? No. It came up and I like to play the devil's advocate.
ax1
Legend
Well there is not wanting people to vote, like I don’t want most of you to vote lol but suppressing votes of legal citizens regardless of their character probably isn’t something we should support.
nostrum420
Well-known member
Oof, don't get me started on that election. Again, I'm not saying no voter ID, I'm saying free universal voter ID and questioning why most voter ID advocates are not doing the same.
nostrum420
Well-known member
Jesus it's almost 11... I gotta unsub for a while. TTYL.
dixonk
Well-known member
And I wholeheartedly agree. How about we all write our congressmen to implement a free national voter ID and require it at all state and federal elections?
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Voting is a right and we should protect it for all citizens. Agreed.
Free elections are critical to Americans and we should protect that as well, without suppression or fraud.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that Trump is on the same level as Biden. Trump may have views that seem stupid at times, but he can form a sentence that makes sense and has thought. Yes he has gaffs and he shouldn't be given anymore or less leeway than Joe on that - and he says things that are wrong/false. He may not admit in public when he was wrong but we have seen him change his stance quite often when he has been criticized. Not always, but often enough.
I didn't ask for you to find any citations. I know there are studies out there showing your side, and I also know those studies have been highly criticized by peer-reviewers and generally proven to be invalid. Is it a question worth asking and investigating? Yeah, it is worthy of research. Is it proven or factual? Far from it. I agree that asking for citations can be used as a weapon and I'm not trying to do that. Maybe I should go out and find some poor people myself and ask if they have ID and help them get it if they don't.
Playing devil's advocate is cool. I appreciate it. It is a good way to examine issues that are complicated and multi-dimensional.
ax1
Legend
Wait wut? Is this for real? What if your not voting for either of the single party duopoly???
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Come on. If they decided this, they wouldn't let anyone know until November 4th. "Oh, you're a republican? We moved your voting to yesterday, you're too late."
Woody
Well-known member
Your profitability argument is weak. In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring USPS to prepay their pension plans, costing them billions in free cash flow. Companies like UPS and Fedex can use a pay as you go system. Free cash flow, as you learned in ECON 101, is vital to the success of a business.
USPS is better where I live. Faster, more efficient, and more reliable. FedEx/UPS is rarely on time and boxes always come crushed. It never takes me longer than a day to get something with USPS via Prime. I live in rural Texas so post office is pretty important here.
Woody
Well-known member
Amazon pays postage. Also Econ 101, Amazon ships millions of packages a year. A company can have a teeny tiny profit margin on when you have that kind of volume. Do you think Wal-Mart pays 68 cents per pound for bananas? They probably pay 10 cents. And the banana supplier will take a smaller profit margin because Walmart buys more bananas in a day than a a Richey Rich Gorilla with a Blank Check would in a year.
dixonk
Well-known member
This thread is the Tourette’s syndrome of AM.
thebigt
Legend
own stock in amazon-eh?
thebigt
Legend
protesting also seems to be covered under rights...should the government be responsible for posters for protesters?
thebigt
Legend
my friend, everyone has bias....
we are products of our experiences.
and all you touch and all you see
is all your life will ever be
jswain34
Well-known member
The difference would be:
1. People want IDs to be required to vote. Therefore you must have one.
2. You arent required to have a poster to protest.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
No, it's not weak, it's a tenant of all economics. We have limited resources, and profit is merely a measure of the outcome of the use of those resources. If you use a resource and get less out of it than you started with, then eventually you will run out of that resource. Now, every resource is limited so you want to make sure the benefit outweighs the cost of the resources you use up. To argue that ANY endeavor does not need to make a profit or at minimum break even is just stupid. Anyone doing this is wasting resources and is actually acting in an unethical manner.
Now, the fact that congress passed a law that increases the use of resources to accomplish a goal is foolish as well. But that is an entirely different discussion than saying, "It's a service and it doesn't need to make a profit." Also, free cash flow I would view more as a lesson I learned in Accounting 101 than Econ 101. Profits aren't all about cashflow. Cash is just a measure of profit, not necessarily the profit itself.
Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying we shouldn't have services. And profit isn't always, "I made $1M more than I spent this year". Sometimes we may show an accounting loss because there is another benefit to those losses. For instance, to use an idea liberals seem to love, our roadways don't really make us money - they are an expense - but they are a huge benefit to our businesses, which increases tax income to the government and makes the investment in the pavement more than worth it. Or spending $400 a week to give someone income for 3 months while they're looking for a job may have a huge benefit in that the person can survive and continue to be a contributing member of society rather than die of starvation (being extreme here). That $400 is a cash loss, but there is a "profit" in it that isn't direct.
Being able to send a letter for a reasonable expense certainly has a benefit and could have a profit - but if we are over-subsidizing it, then there is going to be waste. If it costs the post office $1 to send a letter and I only want to spend $0.55 then I have to make a decision - is it worth sending that letter for $1 or $1.10 or should I not send it. But if the gov't is saying, "It's fine - send all the $0.55 letters you like anyway" - then of course I'm going to abuse it and I will be wasting resources because I will be costing $1 in resources for letters that I don't see as being worth $1 to send. And the more that happens, the more is lost.
Now, the pension plans, etc. are a cost factor in that math - if I need to promise people retirement to get them to carry all of these letters today, then I better be charging enough to deliver that. If people are not willing to pay it, they won't send as many letters.
But you cannot continue to do anything that does not have a "profit" - and it is unethical to try.
And I'm not saying the USPS can't be corrected and should be abolished, just that it has been Trumps stance from the beginning so the fact he is not giving them extra, even though it may benefit him now supposedly, is probably something you would expect from him anyway.
dixonk
Well-known member
Apparently laser pointers and Molotov cocktails are now required to protest.
sammpedd88
Well-known member
Realistically how many people do not have ID of some sort? How many people of the few that don’t have an ID are actually going to vote?
Good point! You’ve got to have an ID to file for welfare/government assistance, why can’t you show an ID to vote?
thebigt
Legend
valid point, but ID is required for much more than voting....i honestly don't know how a person could function without one, do you?
jswain34
Well-known member
Unless someone is homeless and has absolutely nothing under their name (bank acct, bills, etc), not really. Well, I guess we’re assuming that they dont have a fake ID...
Also, for the record, I am generally for having to show a state or federally issues ID to vote. I just think we need to make sure that all legitimate US citizens have equal availability in obtaining them. Currently im not positive everyone does, but I’m also not sure that they dont either.
Jiigzz
Legend
He is very scared. He is being ordered by the courts to show evidence of substantial voter fraud (which we all know he wont and cannot do), and so instead of proving it legally, hes defunding the post to try negate the mail in voting system and undermine it.
He is as corrupt as it comes, and if it were Obama doing it, you guys would be out in the streets protesting. Peacefully of course, because if you starting rioting youd be hypocrites
Jiigzz
Legend
Its not a generalization if his experiences make it true. Because he knows everyone with no ID, from every county in every state. In every town, village and city, he knows them all. And anyone without an ID is a crook.
Lol
sammpedd88
Well-known member
You can’t even go to the Red Cross and donate blood without an ID, but it’s not required to show proof of identity to vote? Crazy
sammpedd88
Well-known member
You can’t even go to the Red Cross and donate blood without an ID, but it’s not required to show proof of identity to vote? Crazy
sammpedd88
Well-known member
The high majority of homeless people gets social security. It was mandated years ago that the checks be direct deposited, therefore requiring an ID....hmmmm.
sammpedd88
Well-known member
The high majority of homeless people gets social security. It was mandated years ago that the checks be direct deposited, therefore requiring an ID....hmmmm.
sammpedd88
Well-known member
Postal service warning states it may not be able to deliver ballots in time based on current election rules Invalid Link Removed
Doesn’t look like mail in ballots are going to work.
Doesn’t look like mail in ballots are going to work.
Jiigzz
Legend
So 1113 out of a voting population of 215,000,000 is 0.00005%.
If 1113 cases of voter fraud is rampant, the coronavirus killing 170,000 people must be astronomically unjustifiable to you. I'm glad we can agree on that!
thebigt
Legend
if a valid ID is NOT required what is to prevent a person voting more than once under different names?
all it takes is one fraudulent vote for a democrat to cancel out my vote, what about my right?
thebigt
Legend
if just one person casts a vote for opposing candidate then my vote is cancelled out...the old saying that every vote count losses it's credibility....the government has a responsibility to ensure doing everything possible in eliminating every fraudulent vote in their power
Jiigzz
Legend
Powerful companies have powerful buying power and powerful bargaining power. You either accept their offer of high flow for low profit or they go elsewhere.own stock in amazon-eh?
If you as an individual tried that, they point you towards the exit.
Whether or not that is moral is another argument. Whether or not they should pay taxes is also another argument.
If you get rid of the govt post office? Private companies driven by profit fill the void. Be careful what you wish for