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

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Listen, we need to close this Walmart. I know we successfully processed 5000 transactions today, but 10 people stole something from the store so we can't trust the system."

---

TheRock1525 posted...

This is stupidly bad logic. Like horrifically bad.

Is it? We have 110 million voting without however many cases of fraud, but our election hinges on when 435 people vote.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Always love Taylor Swift getting political!

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

wonder if stefan molyneux still thinks she'd be a fun mom

---

Corrik7 posted...

Is it? We have 110 million voting without however many cases of fraud, but our election hinges on when 435 people vote.

And we can verify those cases of fraud and throw them out.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

"Listen, we need to close this Walmart. I know we successfully processed 5000 transactions today, but 10 people stole something from the store so we can't trust the system."

Using your analogy.

"We have a system that limits theft some in some areas but we want to really get to the masses, so we will no longer employ loss prevention or have any employees so customers can get goods as needed without waiting in lines or such. We trust them to send the check for what they take with their electronic signature for the cost!"

Like, you again are arguing for an extreme view instead of realizing this view isn't mutually exclusive. If you want to go to a more accessible system (though I would argue mail in isn't the best system then), you should want to also increase the check to prevent fraud as well which is easier to do in that system.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Like, you again are arguing for an extreme view instead of realizing this view isn't mutually exclusive. If you want to go to a more accessible system (though I would argue mail in isn't the best system then), you should want to also increase the check to prevent fraud as well which is easier to do in that system.

Again, do it without disenfranchising other voters.

You have yet to come up with a solution for this.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

And we can verify those cases of fraud and throw them out.

They are still finding fraud cases from elections ago to this day. What 12 years after the fact we will nix Trump's Presidency and equate everything he did to Hillary? Like, you don't seem to understand the reason fraud seems so irrelevant to Chris is because it is hard to prove fraud a lot with the systems in place.

The ones that get caught the most are double voting just because people can pull the rolls after a few years or so (sometimes never) and cross reference things.

Most voting as someone else in person is rooted out by knowing they are looking for it alrdy in ID areas so you don't even try it. And in places where they don't you usually don't uncover it. Mail in ballots are a different animal.

---

red13n posted...

Again, do it without disenfranchising other voters.

You have yet to come up with a solution for this.

My solution has been stated.

Anyone can vote via electronic or mail or in person. Fingerprint needed to verify identity. Everything sorted to same database and if identity voted more than once, other votes thrown out.

Now we are gonna argue not everyone has a fingerprint. And argue it disenfranchised voters because they might not want their fingerprints filed in case they do a crime later in life. Like. Lololol.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Using your analogy.

"We have a system that limits theft some in some areas but we want to really get to the masses, so we will no longer employ loss prevention or have any employees so customers can get goods as needed without waiting in lines or such. We trust them to send the check for what they take with their electronic signature for the cost!"

Like, you again are arguing for an extreme view instead of realizing this view isn't mutually exclusive. If you want to go to a more accessible system (though I would argue mail in isn't the best system then), you should want to also increase the check to prevent fraud as well which is easier to do in that system.

Would you accept having to undergo a patdown every time you enter Walmart because, say, one guy snuck in a lockpick and stole some video games in a locked display case?

Voter ID laws are overly burdensome for the problem they purport to address. And then you have bullshit like Republicans specifically choosing the forms of valid ID so that the laws will even more disproportionately affect likely Democratic voters.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Anyone can vote via electronic or mail or in person. Fingerprint needed to verify identity. Everything sorted to same database and if identity voted more than once, other votes thrown out.

Congrats, you just killed over 1% of the voting population.

Next.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Now we are gonna argue not everyone has a fingerprint. And argue it disenfranchised voters because they might not want their fingerprints filed in case they do a crime later in life. Like. Lololol.

1984 called...

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Would you accept having to undergo a patdown every time you enter Walmart because, say, one guy snuck in a lockpick and stole some video games in a locked display case?

Voter ID laws are overly burdensome for the problem they purport to address. And then you have bullshit like Republicans specifically choosing the forms of valid ID so that the laws will even more disproportionately affect likely Democratic voters.

I could give a shit less if I was patted down. The only people who care about such things are people who are worried they are going to get caught doing something. Literally asking someone who thinks a surveillance state is a good idea if they care about being patted down lol.

---

red13n posted...

Congrats, you just killed over 1% of the voting population.

Next.

What

---

You just gave a bunch of elderly people COVID-19.

---

red13n posted...

You just gave a bunch of elderly people COVID-19.

Made 0% sense, but okay.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Literally asking someone who thinks a surveillance state is a good idea if they care about being patted down lol.

Hes got us there
---

Corrik7 posted...

Made 0% sense, but okay.

fingerprint scanners are being pretty much done away with right now.

---

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.

In fact, it is arguably worse.

Whats that old saying? Rather 10
guilty men go free than 1 innocent man get punished.

Yeah, youre basically doing the opposite of that times 100,000. You think its more worthwhile that 198 million people cant vote than 1000 people vote improperly?

This absurd and illogical.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whats that old saying? Rather 10
guilty men go free than 1 innocent man get punished.

Yeah, youre basically doing the opposite of that times 100,000. You think its more worthwhile that 198 million people cant vote than 1000 people vote improperly?

This absurd and illogical.

Actually. I think it would be sane and logical for 330million to vote and us to have systems to stop fraud from taking place.

---

Its so weird to be worried about how 1000 people might defraud the system while at the same time thinking that a 99% reduction in voters would reaffirm the system.

Like if we impliment all these draconian voter laws and suddenly we have 25% less voters, why would thay reflect well on our elected leaders affirmation to run the country?

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Its so weird to be worried about how 1000 people might defraud the system while at the same time thinking that a 99% reduction in voters would reaffirm the system.

Like if we impliment all these draconian voter laws and suddenly we have 25% less voters, why would thay reflect well on our elected leaders affirmation to run the country?

Cuz you are forever stuck in political talking points. You again believe it can only be one way or the other instead of realizing it could be both. You would rather engage in the never ending political loop arguing then have a solution. You are a sheep to the 2 party system.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Cuz you are forever stuck in political talking points. You again believe it can only be one way or the other instead of realizing it could be both. You would rather engage in the never ending political loop arguing then have a solution. You are a sheep to the 2 party system.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Actually. I think it would be sane and logical for 330million to vote and us to have systems to stop fraud from taking place.

Sure, but you have yet to come up with anything that accomplishes this.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

What the fuck are you even talking about?

It's called reading, bud. Try it.

You are arguing for the Democrats talking point. I am arguing for common sense. While you are accusing me of arguing the Republicans talking point which I ain't. It's actually quite funny to see unfolding NGL.

---

red13n posted...

Sure, but you have yet to come up with anything that accomplishes this.

Sure I have. You just threw out 1% of the elderly are gonna die with no rational explanation with your usual covid fearmongering you normally do to try and refute it somehow.

---

I'm not arguing any talking point.

---

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1294756007143497728

Trump on why he won't negotiate a new COVID-19 stimulus bill: "The country is doing very well right now. We can live very happily with it [or] without it."

other gems from this press conference include the postmaster general trying to make USPS great again and also "I can't tell you what he's doing" when pressed on specifics like removing sorting machines.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I'm not arguing any talking point.

Yes, you are. Almost word for word.

Let me make this even easier for you. Inviso always says would I be for free IDs for everyone if everyone was required to vote in person with IDs. And I say yes. There should be no barrier to vote economically. Everyone should be able to vote. You should however have to prove you are the person you are to make sure the person who has the right is voting.

You are acting like I am arguing something different than I am. You are arguing I am for restricting the vote, when I am not at all.

---

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1294756007143497728

Trump on why he won't negotiate a new COVID-19 stimulus bill: "The country is doing very well right now. We can live very happily with it [or] without it."

other gems from this press conference include the postmaster general trying to make USPS great again and also "I can't tell you what he's doing" when pressed on specifics like removing sorting machines.

I saw that also but the actual stuff he says is quite different than it is framed by the twitter post. He says he isn't negotiating it because they want to bail out states who ran themselves poorly instead of the people.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Sure I have. You just threw out 1% of the elderly are gonna die with no rational explanation with your usual covid fearmongering you normally do to try and refute it somehow.

Its not fearmongering, we are in the middle of a pandemic and you just called for a superspreader situation for voting.

Also fingerprint technology is not as good enough to handle an entire population besides that.

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, you are.

No I'm not. The entire argument voter fraud is negligible isn't based on any talking point. It's based on scientific studies done over and over again to show it. If there were actual verifiable studies that said otherwise I'd change my position. But there aren't.

---

Is this true or horse shit? Just curious? I err to horseshit cuz it's Facebook, but the author is very engaged that she did research and used multiple sources to every claim lol.

---

It's a direct quote and the tweet includes the full answer which includes his BS about "I want money for the people they want money for poorly run Democrat states" in the video that is part of the tweet.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

No I'm not. The entire argument voter fraud is negligible isn't based on any talking point. It's based on scientific studies done over and over again to show it. If there were actual verifiable studies that said otherwise I'd change my position. But there aren't.

The MIT study said voter fraud is more rampant in mail in balloting and was recommended against. If I remember correctly. But, you went from me imposing draconian measures to shifting your goalposts to another argument once you realized you were goofing so whatevs.

---

Jesus Christ this is a lot of missing posts.

---

xp1337 posted...

It's a direct quote and the tweet includes the full answer which includes his BS about "I want money for the people they want money for poorly run Democrat states" in the video that is part of the tweet.

It is a direct quote out of context to the question. He explains why he hasn't met with her. Says he would meet with her. Says if they don't get a bill we will be happy either way. Then right after that says he wants to though because he wants to get money to the people.

Seriously stop using Twitter sources that cut out and off stuff to frame a response. I am over here voting for Biden and having to defend Trump because yinz can't stop being disingenuous. Knock him for what he deserves to be knocked for. Don't try to add to the pot.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I saw that also but the actual stuff he says is quite different than it is framed by the twitter post. He says he isn't negotiating it because they want to bail out states who ran themselves poorly instead of the people.

The states didn't fucking "run themselves poorly"! They had a gargantuan expense (dealing with the pandemic) dumped on them because Trump completely abdicated responsibility, and meanwhile have plummeting revenue because of the economic damage caused by covid (which is very much exacerbated by Trump's utter failure to deal with it). Not bailing the states out will cause more cuts in government services and employment, furthering the economic pain everyone is dealing with right now.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Is this true or horse shit? Just curious? I err to horseshit cuz it's Facebook, but the author is very engaged that she did research and used multiple sources to every claim lol.

The part about Mar A Lago being the first club open to blacks and Jews in the 90s is actually true

He didnt sue about it though
---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Jesus Christ this is a lot of missing posts.

People don't learn.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The MIT study said voter fraud is more rampant in mail in balloting and was recommended against. If I remember correctly.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/864899178/why-is-voting-by-mail-suddenly-controversial-heres-what-you-need-to-know

While election experts say fraud in mail balloting is slightly more common than in in-person voting it's still such a minuscule amount it's not statistically meaningful.

Amber Reynolds, a former Colorado election official and now CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute, and Charles Stewart, director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, recently put the numbers in context in an op-ed in The Hill titled "Let's put the vote-by-mail 'fraud' myth to rest."

Over the past 20 years, they write, more than 250 million ballots have been cast by mail nationwide, while there have been just 143 criminal convictions for election fraud related to mail ballots. That averages out to about one case per state every six or seven years, or a fraud rate of 0.00006%.

"Expanding voting by mail will be a challenge in most states in 2020," they write. "But we reiterate: There is no evidence that mail-balloting results in rampant voter fraud, nor that election officials lack the knowledge about how to protect against abuses."

IIRC, the "MIT study" you're referencing turned out to be done by an MIT student or something to that effect but it nevertheless made rounds across right-wing media as "omg MIT says FRAUD"

---

TotallyNotMI posted...

People don't learn.

i am sorry

---

Corrik > People complaining about people talking to Corrik
---

Corrik7 posted...

Is this true or horse shit? Just curious? I err to horseshit cuz it's Facebook, but the author is very engaged that she did research and used multiple sources to every claim lol.

They had a public spat over real estate and fell out of favor with one another. Nothing else is corroborated anywhere.

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik > People complaining about people talking to Corrik

that's wrong in so many different ways

---

Oh shit the call out

---

xp1337 posted...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/864899178/why-is-voting-by-mail-suddenly-controversial-heres-what-you-need-to-know

IIRC, the "MIT study" you're referencing turned out to be done by an MIT student or something to that effect but it nevertheless made rounds across right-wing media as "omg MIT says FRAUD"

Omg you're giving me flashbacks to Ulti repeatedly claiming "Stanford PROVES the democratic primaries are rigged!" because some fucking Stanford grad student wrote a (non-peer reviewed) "paper" looking at exit poll discrepancies and claimed that there was like a one in a million chance there wasn't rigging because he didn't understand the concept that there are errors other than sampling error (and that exit polls are sure as fuck not being drawn from a uniform distribution of all voters with equal probability).

---

You know, people who are generally okay with denying people the right to vote are the ones that tend to know they wouldn't be the ones affected. I wonder how it'd be if the shoe were on the other foot -- if they were the ones that'd be unable to vote in order to ensure 'safe elections'

---

corrik has very well proven that he doesn't care about anything until it effects him personally

---

Let's just put in a literacy test to disenfranchise the Republican base.

Leafeon13N posted...

Let's just put in a literacy test to disenfranchise the Republican base.

Full stop

No
---