Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 315: Defund the Po...

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

At this point it seems extremely foolish to vote by mail right now.

That's what Trump wants you to think.

---

If you vote by mail, is there a way to tell if your ballot was received and counted?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

At this point it seems extremely foolish to vote by mail right now.

No.

Vote by mail.

Do it early.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

If you vote by mail, is there a way to tell if your ballot was received and counted?

Yes. Every state has a system setup to verify you ballot status. It is legally required.

---

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/14/south-dakotans-wont-receive-new-400-weekly-unemployment-payments/5585175002/

South Dakota first state to completely turn down all executive order unemployment aid.

---

Yeah, my mom is in her 60s and has severe asthma - she's high risk and would be very wary about standing in a packed line of people, at least some of whom would probably be flying their political colors by not wearing a mask. It's unfair to call people in her situation foolish.

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Yeah, my mom is in her 60s and has severe asthma - she's high risk and would be very wary about standing in a packed line of people, at least some of whom would probably be flying their political colors by not wearing a mask. It's unfair to call people in her situation foolish.

Well you can vote absentee early in person too right?
---

I'm researching it for my parents. Luckily, we live in NV, a state that seems to be actively working to make mail voting accessible.

---

It seems quite wise for someone with health conditions that make coronavirus especially dangerous to not vote in person. If you can't vote by mail and would have to risk your life to vote in person, better to not vote at all.

---

Also, I think I'm okay with mass vote by mail provided that there is a narrow range of dates on which ballots received will be accepted. I don't want people to vote too early before all the evidence is in and I want final results on election night.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, I think I'm okay with mass vote by mail provided that there is a narrow range of dates on which ballots received will be accepted. I don't want people to vote too early before all the evidence is in and I want final results on election night.

Too easy to abuse. Shouldn't be allowed without a proper identification system. Fingerprint verification or such.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Too easy to abuse. Shouldn't be allowed without a proper identification system. Fingerprint verification or such.

There is no history of this.

---

I don't want people to vote too early before all the evidence is in and I want final results on election night.

How long has "final results on election night" been a realistic possibility?
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

I don't want people to vote too early before all the evidence is in and I want final results on election night.

How long has "final results on election night" been a realistic possibility?

At least 120 years.

Remember when Biden said that Trump might try to delay the election, a bunch of people said he was floating completely baseless conspiracy theories, and then Trump suggested exactly that? Well,

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1294665953314316288?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Remember when Biden said that Trump might try to delay the election, a bunch of people said he was floating completely baseless conspiracy theories, and then Trump suggested exactly that? Well,

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1294665953314316288?s=21

This is why fact checking is dumb. "Baseless" is an opinion, not a fact.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

There is no history of this.

That's a bad argument, Chris.

---

Requiring fingerprint identification to vote means requiring everyone to have fingerprints on file, and thats not happening.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Requiring fingerprint identification to vote means requiring everyone to have fingerprints on file, and thats not happening.

Why not? It would also probably help police with catching culprits in cases a lot.

---

Just requiring ID at the polls is a great first step to stopping voter fraud.

India can do it. Why can't we?

---

I just laugh all the times that people spout about conspiracy theorists and QAnons and whatever else conspiracy as lunacy but are the first up in arms when it comes to having all of the United States fingerprinted or requiring identification or surveillance and etc.

Like, you are just as much as a conspiracy theorist.

---

Ideally posted...

Just requiring ID at the polls is a great first step to stopping voter fraud.

India can do it. Why can't we?

Because we don't want to give free ID to everyone. We (by which I mean Republicans, since you never hear Democrats arguing in favor of the current system of voter ID) would rather insist on voter ID, but make decisions on how to get said ID, or what ID is acceptable, based on which ID would disenfranchise the "wrong" kind of legal voters.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a bad argument, Chris.

No it isn't. We have had a ton of mail in voting for years now with no issue.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Why not? It would also probably help police with catching culprits in cases a lot.

Corrik7 posted...

I just laugh all the times that people spout about conspiracy theorists and QAnons and whatever else conspiracy as lunacy but are the first up in arms when it comes to having all of the United States fingerprinted or requiring identification or surveillance and etc.

Like, you are just as much as a conspiracy theorist.

lmao they have my fingerprints AND DNA already, this isnt about me.


---

Corrik7 posted...

I just laugh all the times that people spout about conspiracy theorists and QAnons and whatever else conspiracy as lunacy but are the first up in arms when it comes to having all of the United States fingerprinted or requiring identification or surveillance and etc.

Like, you are just as much as a conspiracy theorist.

The government can and will do bad things with surveillance is on the same level as Democrats are a sex-trafficking demonic cult and we need to keep the children safe until JFK Jr reveals he isnt really dead and runs as Trumps VP to purge all the demons
---

Ideally posted...

Just requiring ID at the polls is a great first step to stopping voter fraud.

India can do it. Why can't we?

Because fixing an extremely minor problem (one that has little to no proven effect on anything) by making it harder for millions of qualified Americans (disproportionately minorities, by no coincidence) to vote is a bad idea.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

The government can and will do bad things with surveillance is on the same level as Democrats are a sex-trafficking demonic cult and we need to keep the children safe until JFK Jr reveals he isnt really dead and runs as Trumps VP to purge all the demons

Yes, assuming a conspiracy is as bad as assuming a conspiracy. Correct. Glad you get that.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

No it isn't. We have had a ton of mail in voting for years now with no issue.

This flies in the face of anyone who ever has believed in preventive measures and maintenance. You don't set up scenarios where it can easily be misused and use arguments of "well, we never tested properly or had the means to test properly if they would take advantage of this system as we are easily setting it up for, so it must be good!

"Hey, we should nuke China and Iran because there is no history that doing those things would actually be bad".

It is a nonsensical argument, and one I doubt you seriously believe. There is no doubt that you actually believe in preventing things happening beforehand and not setting them up to fail. I have no doubt you believe that contraception should be given out for free if requested to prevent pregnancy. And, would espouse that pro-life arguments are flawed because they also wish to restrict protected sex due to the sanctimony of marriage.

You don't throw situations into where they could be abused because you haven't yet to see someone do it (you haven't because it is too hard to prove it and test for it now).

We have ample evidence that similar avenues have been abused via fraud through online and mail services repeatedly, in much more intricate fashions. Because of ample investigating due to it having a monetary effect on tax payers.

Don't say wellll voter fraud could happen but we have no reason to believe it has happened yet so the honor system is working. That is reactionary bullshit. You put in places the systems to eliminate the possibility as much as possible. Not wait for it to happen.

You are the engineer who destroys the motor which takes 8 months to replace with no backup instead of doing scheduled preventive maintenance to assess you needed a backup or to prevent it from happening in the first place. Like, that's nonsense arguing, Chris. You are better than that. It's okay to want voting to be accessible and for voting to be secure. You shouldn't want only the one.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Because fixing an extremely minor problem (one that has little to no proven effect on anything) by making it harder for millions of qualified Americans (disproportionately minorities, by no coincidence) to vote is a bad idea.

all that ever needs to be said

---

Voting does not run on an honor system.

---

red13n posted...

Voting does not run on an honor system.

Mail in voting does. Lack of ID voting does.

Everyone should be given the same access to vote and the same process of identification to verify their vote. Shouldn't even be a debate unless playing politics.

---

Corrik7 posted...

This flies in the face of anyone who ever has believed in preventive measures and maintenance. You don't set up scenarios where it can easily be misused and use arguments of "well, we never tested properly or had the means to test properly if they would take advantage of this system as we are easily setting it up for, so it must be good!

"Hey, we should nuke China and Iran because there is no history that doing those things would actually be bad".

It is a nonsensical argument, and one I doubt you seriously believe. There is no doubt that you actually believe in preventing things happening beforehand and not setting them up to fail. I have no doubt you believe that contraception should be given out for free if requested to prevent pregnancy. And, would espouse that pro-life arguments are flawed because they also wish to restrict protected sex due to the sanctimony of marriage.

You don't throw situations into where they could be abused because you haven't yet to see someone do it (you haven't because it is too hard to prove it and test for it now).

We have ample evidence that similar avenues have been abused via fraud through online and mail services repeatedly, in much more intricate fashions. Because of ample investigating due to it having a monetary effect on tax payers.

Don't say wellll voter fraud could happen but we have no reason to believe it has happened yet so the honor system is working. That is reactionary bullshit. You put in places the systems to eliminate the possibility as much as possible. Not wait for it to happen.

You are the engineer who destroys the motor which takes 8 months to replace with no backup instead of doing scheduled preventive maintenance to assess you needed a backup or to prevent it from happening in the first place. Like, that's nonsense arguing, Chris. You are better than that. It's okay to want voting to be accessible and for voting to be secure. You shouldn't want only the one.

There are already measures in place. They work.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

There are already measures in place. They work.

Fraud in systems with literally greater checks in place other than a honor system signature.

Not sure is serious.

Yinz continue to play politics and be a part of the political game instead of getting things proper.

It's very simple. Every single person should be able to vote easily and every single person should be provided with means to properly identify themselves for such a vote that actually would do so.

---

I think Corrik thinks you can just order a pack of ballots, fill them all out, and send them in.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Fraud in systems with literally greater checks in place other than a honor system signature.

Not sure is serious.

Yinz continue to play politics and be a part of the political game instead of getting things proper.

It's very simple. Every single person should be able to vote easily and every single person should be provided with means to properly identify themselves for such a vote that actually would do so.

There have been studies. Very low fraud has been found in mail in ballots over decades. How is this even political.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

"Baseless" is an opinion, not a fact.

...it's literally not?

a claim is based on something or it isn't. it's not a matter of opinion.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

There have been studies. Very low fraud has been found in mail in ballots over decades. How is this even political.

They do a sample size, Chris. And can't prove it in some cases.

But regardless you already admit to fraud already exists in the small subset of mail in balloting. Yet, you want it to encompass the entire populace which would magnify it. Instead of instilling a situation to root it out much better and expand it.

---

Corrik, you are being just as much of a conspiracy theorist as QAnon about your voter fraud worries
---

"every vote matters" "one vote can make the difference"

"Eh studies say voter fraud is low so that's okay let's expand the system with low voter fraud instead of try to eliminate it or make it harder to do!"

C'mon, bud.

---

When I say low I mean a handful of confirmed cases in millions. Like 0.0001%


---

I don't think people are claiming there aren't security risks associated with mail-in voting. I think people are claiming that those risks have been shown to be minimal and that the associated increase in accessibility is comparatively large and therefore worthwhile.
---

pyresword posted...

I don't think people are claiming there aren't security risks associated with mail-in voting. I think people are claiming that those risks have been shown to be minimal and that the associated increase in accessibility is comparatively large and therefore worthwhile.

Yeah this

Corrik, whats better, a system where 200M people vote but 1000 votes are frauds, or a system where 100M people vote but 20 votes are frauds
---

Always love Taylor Swift getting political!

https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/1294685438528159749?s=21
---

Corrik7 posted...

Mail in voting does. Lack of ID voting does.

Again, this is false.

It is not an honor system.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah this

Corrik, whats better, a system where 200M people vote but 1000 votes are frauds, or a system where 100M people vote but 20 votes are frauds

A system were fraud doesn't exist and when it does exist we have ways to systematically uncover it.

200 million people voting and 1000 being fraud which turns the election is no better than 2 million voting and 0 being fraud.

In fact, it is arguably worse.

The fact you are okay with fraud and it's possible expansion because you are so against putting in a system to stamp out fraud is kind of concerning to me. They again, are not mutually exclusive.

When you are arguing all ballots should go to a less secure method of voting with no ways to stamp down on fraud that could be used, you are arguing a self-serving argument.

---

Corrik7 posted...

A system were fraud doesn't exist and when it does exist we have ways to systematically uncover it.

200 million people voting and 1000 being fraud which turns the election is no better than 2 million voting and 0 being fraud.

In fact, it is arguably worse.

The fact you are okay with fraud and it's possible expansion because you are so against putting in a system to stamp out fraud is kind of concerning to me. They again, are not mutually exclusive.

When you are arguing all ballots should go to a less secure method of voting with no ways to stamp down on fraud that could be used, you are arguing a self-serving argument.

Uhhh. Wow

---

Sure, lets stamp out fraud.

Without decreasing the number of people that are going to have access to voting.

---

red13n posted...

Sure, lets stamp out fraud.

Without decreasing the number of people that are going to have access to voting.

Literally said since my initial post. Yinz are the ones arguing against it. Lol.

---

Corrik7 posted...

200 million people voting and 1000 being fraud which turns the election is no better than 2 million voting and 0 being fraud.

This is stupidly bad logic. Like horrifically bad.

---

red13n posted...

Without decreasing the number of people that are going to have access to voting.

You didn't fulfill this.

---