Trump just comes out and says it: The GOP is hurt when it’s easier to vote

[aubiefifty 16,766]

On 3/31/2020 at 3:39 PM, Mikey said:

Sounds like a Texas problem to me. I live in Alabama.

PS: When did this become a normal usage: "Latinx"? I've never seen it before. What does it mean, exactly?

it is an american problem and you saying you do not care tells me all i need to know.

[Mikey 16,578]

9 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

it is an american problem and you saying you do not care tells me all i need to know.

The problems is: Dems want lax voting requirements because that makes it easier to cheat. The only reason to be against in person, ID verified voting is so that cheating can be successfully carried out.

[homersapien 11,367]

21 hours ago, Mikey said:

The problems is: Dems want lax voting requirements because that makes it easier to cheat. The only reason to be against in person, ID verified voting is so that cheating can be successfully carried out.

Yet, you cannot produce one significant example of Democrats "cheating",  but there are literally dozens of examples of Republicans trying to suppress voting. 

Hell they don't even deny it anymore, as the OP illustrates.

[McLoofus 35,182]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yet, you cannot produce one significant example of Democrats cheating but there are literally dozens of example of Republicans trying to suppress voting.  Hell they don't even deny it anymore, as the OP illustrates.

He almost got one thing right. Cheating is successfully carried out because the GOP is against everyone having a clear path to in-person, ID verified voting. That's why they keep making it harder for the common man to get a verifiable ID and then be there in-person to use it. 

[Grumps 3,704]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yet, you cannot produce one significant example of Democrats cheating but there are literally dozens of example of Republicans trying to suppress voting.  Hell they don't even deny it anymore, as the OP illustrates.

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 minutes ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

You're certain they don't know anything about the candidates?

Do you propose that they've lost the right to vote? On what grounds, specifically? Is the bus the problem? Should they drive themselves? Who do you suspect they're being told to vote for? Please be specific about what you'd like to change about the situation.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

How is it wrong to take people somewhere so that they can exercise their rights?  Especially if they aren't being told or asked to vote for a specific candidate.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

“Give me all your dementia patients and invalids. We’re gonna tell them how to vote” 

 

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

You're certain they don't know anything about the candidates?

Do you propose that they've lost the right to vote?On what grounds, specifically? Is the bus the problem? Should they drive themselves? Who do you suspect they're being told to vote for?Please be specific about what you'd like to change about the situation.

It’s the Boomer Begone Bus and they can only vote democrat or else they’re working the gardens. George Soros gonna get me paid. 
 

What a silly/bordering deep state type of idea. 

[alexava 6,973]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

This might be your worst post in a while. It’s presumptuous at best. I’m not sure if   you have a problem with taking disabled voters to the polls or the elderly still having that right. I don’t see how it is possibly “wrong “. 

[homersapien 11,367]

6 hours ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

Are you suggesting nursing home residents don't have the right to vote?

How is that "cheating"?

[Mikey 16,578]

11 hours ago, McLoofus said:

That's why they keep making it harder for the common man to get a verifiable ID and then be there in-person to use it. 

Where is it hard for "the common man" to get a voter ID? Not here in Alabama.

[gr82be 14,423]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

I'm sure you have your reasons for your point but I'm not so sure about that. My father was in assisted living for a couple of years before his death in 2018. He was glued to the TV news programs for most of his waking hours as were others there. The most outspoken were the Veterans. I know that no bus driver would have told my dad who to vote for. That may go on in places but the Greatest Generation are the last people to allow someone to tell them what to do imo. 

I do believe there is illegal voting but I think it goes both ways. I'm a conservative Christian as most on here can tell by my posts and because of that reason I want things done the right way as I'm sure a lot of Americans do. There is a problem with people not doing there homework on issues and finding the candidate that is the closest thing they can find that align with their beliefs. I got much if my beliefs from my father and watching the kind of man, father and husband he was. He was worried and hurt by what he saw going on after the Reagan years. He was a patriot who gave 20 years to defend the country he loved and no one would ever tell him who to vote for. 

We won't find the perfect candidate to vote for. Sometimes we don't vote for a person as much as we vote against another. Sad times, but it's probably been that way for some forever. Personally I try to keep an open mind but as I mentioned, I am a conservative Christian and there are certain things that I can't budge on. For those inclined to pray, pray before you vote, then pray a whole lot after you vote. 

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

17 hours ago, Grumps said:

At almost every election I see a small bus pick up nursing home residents who have no clue about any of the candidates and take those residents to vote. I have no proof that the person who picks them up tells them who to vote for, but it is wrong, no matter who gets the votes.

For years the wife and I volunteered and enjoyed working with seniors in assisted and independent living at a nursing home in Auburn. Set up and called bingo for them, assisted on bus trips for shopping, banking, etc. Rest assured, that is a hard headed stubborn population. The ones that are engaged politically are entrenched and from my experience will not be influenced by anyone as to how their vote is cast. I assisted a group in the 2012 presidential election. Voting took place at the St. Michael's annex of Auburn Methodist and it was crowded. Getting off of that bus was embarrassing, even to me, due to some of the insults a couple in the group loudly proclaimed about Obama.

Thankfully I wound up helping some folks in the "C" line. Jason Caldwell of ITAT happened to be in line with us and he was a prince. Kept everyone entertained while waiting to vote. 

[Grumps 3,704]

I never said who

18 hours ago, McLoofus said:

You're certain they don't know anything about the candidates?

Do you propose that they've lost the right to vote? On what grounds, specifically? Is the bus the problem? Should they drive themselves? Who do you suspect they're being told to vote for? Please be specific about what you'd like to change about the situation.

Believe it or not, I am absolutely certain that some of them no nothing about the candidates. And if you will read what I typed instead of what you think I meant, then you might find my remarks less offensive. I never said that people in a nursing home shouldn't vote or have people drive them to a polling place. I never said who the people may have been told to vote for and specifically said I think it is wrong no matter who gets the votes.

Do you think that someone who has lost their right to make decisions about their health or their finances should still keep their right to vote? (I truly don't know if people who are deemed incompetent are allowed to vote or not, but I have never heard of someone losing their right to vote in this instance). My Mom has dementia. My sister who cares for her will take her to vote and tell her who to vote for even if the candidate is someone my sister knows would have been abhorrent to my Mom when she was in her right mind. I think that is wrong as well.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

My Mom has dementia. My sister who cares for her will take her to vote and tell her who to vote for even if the candidate is someone my sister knows would have been abhorrent to my Mom when she was in her right mind. I think that is wrong as well.

Yes, that is wrong. I'm not so sure that it's something that occurs on such a large scale that we need to make laws about it, and I strongly doubt that it favors any particular party, but it is wrong. 

As for people losing their right to vote due to compromised judgment, tell old folks to get in line behind a few million people belonging to every other demographic. Starting with anyone who only gets their news from one 24-hr news network. (And that includes CNN.)

 

[Grumps 3,704]

13 hours ago, alexava said:

This might be your worst post in a while. It’s presumptuous at best. I’m not sure if   you have a problem with taking disabled voters to the polls or the elderly still having that right. I don’t see how it is possibly “wrong “. 

Once again, I truly believe that if you will focus on what I typed instead of what you think I meant, then you may see that my words are not that offensive. I will ask you, do YOU think that people (of any age) who are legally incapable of making medical and legal decisions for themselves should be allowed to vote? If so, should there be any limits on who is allowed to take them? What if the person who pays for the bus ride (or someone openly supporting them) is a local candidate in the election?

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

What if the person who pays for the bus ride (or someone openly supporting them) is a local candidate in the election?

Is that what's happening in your scenario that you see every election?

If you have specifics that lead you to your conclusions, then that would make your initial post a lot less suspect. 

[alexava 6,973]

9 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Once again, I truly believe that if you will focus on what I typed instead of what you think I meant, then you may see that my words are not that offensive. I will ask you, do YOU think that people (of any age) who are legally incapable of making medical and legal decisions for themselves should be allowed to vote? If so, should there be any limits on who is allowed to take them? What if the person who pays for the bus ride (or someone openly supporting them) is a local candidate in the election?

I have no problem with getting voters to the polls however they get there. I don’t care who gets them there. If the candidate tells them to vote for him that’s what every candidate does during a campaign. The voters still take a ballot and go into a privacy cubicle alone unless they need physical help. 
    I see plenty of people drive to the polls themselves and still vote for candidates who fall against their own economic interest because a social issue that will never change. That’s also called not having a clue. Should they be able to vote? Better yet. Should we  have a basic civics test to pass in order to receive a ballot?  The republicans in the south DO NOT want that. 

[Grumps 3,704]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Is that what's happening in your scenario that you see every election?

If you have specifics that lead you to your conclusions, then that would make your initial post a lot less suspect. 

No, I do not know if that is what is happening for every election. I intentionally only included the information that I have witnessed personally and excluded the rumor part of it because I don't know if what is rumored is true or not. Since I was explaining further I added the rumored part as a hypothetical, since I cannot verify it as truth. I have no reason to lie to you all.

[McLoofus 35,182]

28 minutes ago, Grumps said:

No, I do not know if that is what is happening for every election. I intentionally only included the information that I have witnessed personally and excluded the rumor part of it because I don't know if what is rumored is true or not. Since I was explaining further I added the rumored part as a hypothetical, since I cannot verify it as truth. I have no reason to lie to you all.

Well, you did say "almost every election". Regardless, it seems your position is that people who don't check certain boxes on the mental capacity checklist should not be allowed to vote, and failing that right being taken away, there should be stipulations regarding how they are transported to the polling place. 

I see the logic in the first position. I don't agree with it, and I still wonder if you've considered other groups who might vote against their own best interests for various reasons. But there is logic in it. 

The second position has me scratching my head a little bit. How do you propose people who are incapable of transporting themselves to a polling place- which is a completely different circumstance than lacking the mental capacity to vote intelligently- get there? Might you suggest instead, I dunno, like a more robust mail-in or online voting system? 

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

8 minutes ago, alexava said:

I have no problem with getting voters to the polls however they get there. I don’t care who gets them there. If the candidate tells them to vote for him that’s what every candidate does during a campaign. The voters still take a ballot and go into a privacy cubicle alone unless they need physical help. 
    I see plenty of people drive to the polls themselves and still vote for candidates who fall against their own economic interest because a social issue that will never change. That’s also called not having a clue. Should they be able to vote? Better yet. Should we  have a basic civics test to pass in order to receive a ballot?  The republicans in the south DO NOT want that. 

You didn't answer my question about voting by people who are mentally incompetent. I agree with you 100% on everything you just said. 100%.

I see now that I was very unclear in my original post. What I meant by "they had no idea about any of the candidate" was that they are literally mentally incompetent.  I have NO PROBLEM with a mentally competent person of any age or in any situation be picked up and given a ride to vote. Is that more clear?

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Grumps said:

What I meant by "they had no idea about any of the candidate" was that they are literally mentally incompetent.

It would be interesting to hear a doctor's perspective on each individual person. 

Regardless, if this really is some giant loophole ripe for exploitation, then it is open to both parties, and I will laugh in the face of anyone who suggests that it favors one party in particular. 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

38 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It would be interesting to hear a doctor's perspective on each individual person. 

Regardless, if this really is some giant loophole ripe for exploitation, then it is open to both parties, and I will laugh in the face of anyone who suggests that it favors one party in particular. 

 

When I made my post the discussion was about cheating in the election process. I am quite sure that in towns that are mostly democrats it would favor democrats and in towns that are mostly republican it would favor republicans. I suppose the best answer is for two buses to pull up to the nursing home so that both parties are represented!

[aubiefifty 16,766]

On 4/9/2020 at 5:32 PM, autigeremt said:

History suggests to just keep walking on this one. Can’t convince a wall to move without force. Lol 

 

 

i am pretty sure if titan was not taking a break he would call you out on this one. funny how some folks present facts to show when the point they are making is correct and you laugh and make fun of folks and yet you folks believe most of the horsesh*t trumps spouts every single day. and you take up for said liar at the expense of the truth...............

[homersapien 11,367]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/4/17/21219034/coronavirus-wisconsin-voting-rights-november-election

How the coronavirus might upend the November election

Author David Daley on coronavirus and the threat to voting rights.

excerpts

Sean Illing

You called the GOP’s 2010 gerrymandering plan “the most audacious political heist of modern times.” Did the Democrats ever really recover from it?

David Daley

No. The GOP’s gerrymandering plan (called REDMAP) has shaped our politics for the last decade.

There are 59 million Americans right now that live in a state in which one or both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the party that won fewer votes in 2018. Fifty-nine million of those people live in a state where Democrats won more votes and Republicans won more seats.

That’s the end result of this redistricting cycle, and these maps have held that strong in all of these state legislatures. So there’s no question that Democrats haven’t recovered from this, and it’s hard to appreciate how much this distorted our politics.

-----------------------------------

David Daley

"Wisconsin was a dress rehearsal for what we’re going to see in November. I think it’s entirely likely that in many states, in many cities, it’s going to be absolutely impossible to conduct the kind of traditional in-person voting that this country has gotten used to. We’re going to need to expand the vote-by-mail options for more people.

What happened in Wisconsin is that 1.2 million people applied for absentee ballots. It overwhelmed these underfunded election boards in the state, and they weren’t able to handle it effectively.

The post office this week still had ballots in envelopes stacked up in many places across Wisconsin. And what you saw was that the governor, a Democratic governor in this case, stepped up and said, rightly, that it’s not safe to ask people to vote [in person] in the middle of this [coronavirus] crisis. And Republicans forced the matter into the courts.

Can you imagine a similar situation in November? I can, and it’s horrifying. This is how a public health crisis turns into a constitutional crisis."