DeSantis Is in

[Crazy Ivan]

OK, I will speculate. The Democrats who told you why they want voter ID were just telling you personally what they thought you wanted to hear. And if they voted for it, it was in exchange for the GOP concession on some other priority. Deals happen all the time in politics. Sometimes you have to vote on what you don't particularly believe in, but do so in order to attain some more important cooperation on another bill. It could also be that the particular voter ID bill that they voted for was very liberal in allowing all sorts of ID, including maybe student IDs and Veterans Affairs IDs. That would not be so distasteful to a Democrat.

Ok thanks for this.

Given that he didn’t know my political leanings, I’m going to assume that he was telling me the truth, and wasn’t lying to me to cover his political ass.

But maybe you have an even lower opinion of politicians than I do.

 

[LifeIn]

Ok thanks for this.

Given that he didn’t know my political leanings, I’m going to assume that he was telling me the truth, and wasn’t lying to me to cover his political ass.

But maybe you have an even lower opinion of politicians than I do.

He doesn't have to know your political leanings to say what he said. Reasoning on principle always sounds more noble than reasoning based on pragmatic necessities of compromise.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

He doesn't have to know your political leanings to say what he said. Reasoning on principle always sounds more noble than reasoning based on pragmatic necessities of compromise.

I.e., not telling me the truth (lying) in order to cover his ass, politically speaking.

You sure don’t think highly of politicians, do you? Not that I blame you. Not one bit.

See, I assume that Democrats pushed ID requirements to vote because they think it’s important that when you show up at the polls, you are the person you claim to be.

Call me crazy.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

So while I can’t quantify the amount of voter fraud that happens, I assume that nobody here doesn’t think that it doesn’t happen.

Woman Arrested for Voter Fraud Scheme

An Iowa woman was arrested today in Sioux City for her role in an alleged voter fraud scheme during the Iowa 2020 primary and general elections.

www.justice.gov

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-is-a-proven-election-manipulation-tactic

You can actually find lots of information about examples of voter fraud. I don’t believe the numbers are high enough to tip a national election, but they sure could tip a local election.

It would make sense that democrats and republicans alike would want to do what we can to make sure that elections are secure.

 

[LifeIn]

I.e., not telling me the truth (lying) in order to cover his ass, politically speaking.

You sure don’t think highly of politicians, do you? Not that I blame you. Not one bit.

Actually I think quite highly of politicians in general. The kind of lying described here is one that is common in the majority of occupations, like car salesmen, real estate sales, really anyone in sales. It is a truly exceptional person that speaks his mind honestly regardless of what anyone thinks. This specific lie, as lies go, is one of the least harmful. (The reason I think highly of politicians is that they sacrifice the potential to earn much more in the private sector in order to do what they consider to be for the common good.

See, I assume that Democrats pushed ID requirements to vote because they think it’s important that when you show up at the polls, you are the person you claim to be.

You can assume that. I will assume they went along with the proposal because it was not as strict as it might have been, and they probably got something in return from the other side.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

It would not do any good. Cherry-picking is cherry-picking. It is not a sound research methodology.

When you defend global warming, it was ultimate cherry picking only one tree in one place as a proxy.

Your carbon kult in total is bad science/cherry-picking.

 

[vibise]

So while I can’t quantify the amount of voter fraud that happens, I assume that nobody here doesn’t think that it doesn’t happen.

Woman Arrested for Voter Fraud Scheme

An Iowa woman was arrested today in Sioux City for her role in an alleged voter fraud scheme during the Iowa 2020 primary and general elections.

www.justice.gov

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-is-a-proven-election-manipulation-tactic

You can actually find lots of information about examples of voter fraud. I don’t believe the numbers are high enough to tip a national election, but they sure could tip a local election.

It would make sense that democrats and republicans alike would want to do what we can to make sure that elections are secure.

And this case, as in most of the ones I have seen, the fraud was committed to favor a Republican.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

And this case, as in most of the ones I have seen, the fraud was committed to favor a Republican.

We should reduce the voter fraud no matter who it favors.

I assume you’d like voter fraud that favors Republican candidates to be reduced/eliminated, right?

 

[Truth7t7]

Policies?

He signed a draconian 6-week ban on abortion which will hurt him in the general.
He initiated a ridiculous war against Disney, the largest employer in the state and the epitome of squeaky-clean.
He is on board with book bans and remaking higher education to reflect RW views.
He fired an ELECTED prosecutor.
He expanded the proliferation of guns in the state.
He approves of gerrymandering.
He has made it clear he is not interested in compromise or bipartisanship, derisively referring to Dems as "woke".

Sounds like a good guy to me, we need more of his kind, shutting down the woke liberal agenda in its tracks!

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Actually I think quite highly of politicians in general. The kind of lying described here is one that is common in the majority of occupations, like car salesmen, real estate sales, really anyone in sales. It is a truly exceptional person that speaks his mind honestly regardless of what anyone thinks. This specific lie, as lies go, is one of the least harmful. (The reason I think highly of politicians is that they sacrifice the potential to earn much more in the private sector in order to do what they consider to be for the common good.



You can assume that. I will assume they went along with the proposal because it was not as strict as it might have been, and they probably got something in return from the other side.

Why would Democrats be interested in ANY voter ID laws though? What's the purpose? Doesn't ANY voter ID law serve as SOME impediment to voting, particularly for ethnic minorities and the poor? I mean, that's the argument you and others have been putting forth. Why would Democrats have ANY interest in signing off on ANY voter ID law, especially when it may reduce the number of votes for their traditional constituencies?

 

[BMS]

That is what I mean. The black candidate was exceptional because he was an exception to the rule that Presidents are white - a rule that had been followed since the founding of the nation, even after 1870 when blacks were supposedly full citizens. Having one white President is not surprising. After all, whites were 87% of the population. But having that pattern repeated in 31 more elections is not mere chance. If it were mere chance based on the percentages in the population the probability of one white President is 87%. The probability of two in a row is 76%. The probability of three in a row is 66%. Four in a row is 57%. Ten in a row 25%. The probability of 20 white Presidents in a row is 6%. And the probability of 31 white Presidents in a row, which we had, after black emancipation, when black were supposed to be as free as whites and entitled to anything whites can do, is 1.3%. So when Obama was a real possibility, it was an exception to this long-running and very unlikely winning streak. It's not like we already had 4 or 5 black Presidents already. That would not have been an exceptional election. But the first ever in over 200 years - that is very exceptional. So you are right. It was because he was black - and rightly so!

Not the best way to look at it though. Better is to look at who is the most competant.
I mean my favoirite for the Conservative leadership was Rishi Sunak because I thought he was the most competant, not because he was asian or brown. My second favourite was Kemi Badenock, not because she is black but because she is a Christian.

If the next president was a black evamgelical fundamental Christian, would you change your mind?

 

[BMS]

And this case, as in most of the ones I have seen, the fraud was committed to favor a Republican.

But you cant give any examples, right?

 

[glenlogie]

And this case, as in most of the ones I have seen, the fraud was committed to favor a Republican.

Because democrats are as pure as the wind driven snow

 

[LifeIn]

Why would Democrats be interested in ANY voter ID laws though? What's the purpose?

As I explained in my speculation, the Democrats only voted for the voter ID law to get GOP cooperation on something they want, like a mass transit project. Deals like that happen all the time. It is called compromise.

 

[Algor]

(The reason I think highly of politicians is that they sacrifice the potential to earn much more in the private sector in order to do what they consider to be for the common good.

This explains the remarkable stock market success of federal representatives. Why, they could have earned MORE in private circles!

Personal Profit in Congress (Published 2022)

Some members of Congress have strangely good timing when it comes to stock investments.

www.nytimes.com

 

[LifeIn]

Not the best way to look at it though. Better is to look at who is the most competant.

But that's not the way it has been done since the founding of the country. Up until Obama, the decision has not not purely on who is the most competent. It was also based on the race of the candidate. He had to be white. So breaking that long-standing pattern was an exception. Thus Obama was an exceptional candidate. You may have misinterpreted "exceptional" to mean exceptionally talented or exceptionally competent. He may have been that, but that is not what I meant. I simply meant that the prospect of electing a black man to the presidency was an exception to the long standing rule that a President must be white.

 

[Backup]

So?

and there we have it folks, right-wing “policy” in a nutshell

They know there is not a voter fraud problem, yet they want to put restrictions on voting anyway.

I assume that there are always some sort of shenanigans that happen during presidential elections. Politics is dirty business, and a presidential election is the Super Bowl of politics. Of COURSE there are shenanigans, on both sides.

So given that reality, and given that context, no I do not think that Trump won.


None of that has anything to do with my comments regarding voter IDs.

 

[LifeIn]

This explains the remarkable stock market success of federal representatives. Why, they could have earned MORE in private circles!

Personal Profit in Congress (Published 2022)

Some members of Congress have strangely good timing when it comes to stock investments.

www.nytimes.com

They could have done even better in the private sector on average. the NY Times is cherry-picking. They did not analyze the stock holdings of ALL congressmen, did they?

 

[Backup]

And this case, as in most of the ones I have seen, the fraud was committed to favor a Republican.

Yeah, and they don’t seem the least bit worried about voter suppression.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

As I explained in my speculation, the Democrats only voted for the voter ID law to get GOP cooperation on something they want, like a mass transit project. Deals like that happen all the time. It is called compromise.

So the Democrat-controlled and dominated governorship and legislature - which could have passed virtually anything they wanted - needed to agree to something that they absolutely hated, which would have (so the argument goes) undercut the number of votes they themselves would receive, in order to get the Republicans to sign on to something that most likely they didn't even need help with (given that they controlled all parts of state government)? That's your story?

Personally, I'll choose to believe my elected official, since it's really in everyone's best interest that people who vote are actually the people who are legally registered to vote. Don't forget, Democrats USED to be for this kind of thing, and it was Republicans who opposed it, generally on the grounds that they didn't want government authority to expand. Just like Democrats USED to be for defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and how Democrats USED to sound just like modern Republicans when it came to the border and immigration.