One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
For anyone confused...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next>>
Mar 17, 2019 12:01:42   #
dongreen76 (a regular here)
 
Heah ye ! Heah ye!

If you were raised and taught the proper social ettiquette,You should know that when conversing and socializing.There is three things you should not discuss.
Politics, Religion, and Race.
There never can be established a right or wrong of either venue

| Reply
Mar 17, 2019 13:21:42   #
eagleye13 (a regular here)
 
dongreen76 wrote:
Heah ye ! Heah ye!

If you were raised and taught the proper social ettiquette,You should know that when conversing and socializing.There is three things you should not discuss.
Politics, Religion, and Race.
There never can be established a right or wrong of either venue


"Politics, Religion, and Race.
There never can be established a right or wrong of either venue" - dongreen76]

It will be.
It is written.
The good prevails.
Choose your side.

| Reply
Mar 17, 2019 16:16:01   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
JW wrote:
They are reading it exactly as it was meant to be understood. Mohammed was a warlord who fashioned a religion to provide an unending supply of soldiers.

Christchurch is a major city in New Zealand.

I really wish you people would do some historical research before succumbing to modern propaganda.


Says the one that claims Islam itself is anything other than a peaceable religion.

As for not knowing of Christchurch NZ previously, can you list EVERY city in EVERY country?

| Reply
Mar 17, 2019 20:53:08   #
dongreen76 (a regular here)
 
eagleye13 wrote:
"Politics, Religion, and Race.
There never can be established a right or wrong of either venue" - dongreen76]

It will be.
It is written.
The good prevails.
Choose your side.


No No No ! bat eye.Who is to say who and what the good is and are.
A contest takes place between the sheep and a wolf .The wolf needs food,he wants food at the sheep's expense .To the wolf,to eat is righteous and good,to be consumed is not so righteous and good to the sheep.Whose side would you choose .? Sustenance for the wolf,or survival for sheep-keeping in mind,we are all good creatures.

| Reply
Mar 17, 2019 23:37:52   #
eagleye13 (a regular here)
 
dongreen76 wrote:
No No No ! bat eye.Who is to say who and what the good is and are.
A contest takes place between the sheep and a wolf .The wolf needs food,he wants food at the sheep's expense .To the wolf,to eat is righteous and good,to be consumed is not so righteous and good to the sheep.Whose side would you choose .? Sustenance for the wolf,or survival for sheep-keeping in mind,we are all good creatures.


don; 2 Socialists or 2 Democrats vote to eat the sheep if he is alone.

| Reply
Mar 18, 2019 05:39:57   #
JW (a regular here)
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Says the one that claims Islam itself is anything other than a peaceable religion.

As for not knowing of Christchurch NZ previously, can you list EVERY city in EVERY country?


Do you understand the concept of research? A fairly sincere effort applied would have resolved both issues for you.

Can I list them all... no, but I am familiar with all the major ones.

| Reply
Mar 18, 2019 14:41:17   #
SkptkSumthin
 
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_caging


Did you notice in the summary of the article at your link that the Supreme Court in
2018 rejected a challenge to Ohio's voter registration law? Challenging people who
are trying to vote using someone else's registration simply helps to prevent vote
fraud, and "voter caging", as defined in the linked article, sounds like a pretty good
way to ferret out possible cheats.

| Reply
Mar 18, 2019 16:16:58   #
bylm1-Bernie
 
dongreen76 wrote:
No No No ! bat eye.Who is to say who and what the good is and are.
A contest takes place between the sheep and a wolf .The wolf needs food,he wants food at the sheep's expense .To the wolf,to eat is righteous and good,to be consumed is not so righteous and good to the sheep.Whose side would you choose .? Sustenance for the wolf,or survival for sheep-keeping in mind,we are all good creatures.



If you prefer to not discuss politics, Don, then I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place! Have you noticed the name of this forum?

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 00:02:22   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
SkptkSumthin wrote:
Did you notice in the summary of the article at your link that the Supreme Court in
2018 rejected a challenge to Ohio's voter registration law? Challenging people who
are trying to vote using someone else's registration simply helps to prevent vote
fraud, and "voter caging", as defined in the linked article, sounds like a pretty good
way to ferret out possible cheats.


Did it occur to you that perhaps when it was done in Ohio that it was done solely to purge the voter rolls legitimately and not done as a way to discriminate? If one wishes to purge voter rolls, they shouldn't be doing it around an election. Voter caging is done shortly before an election the mailings are sent out, any that are returned as undeliverable are then challenged if/when they do vote. If a voter has just recently moved, the mailing can NOT be forwarded so if they moved and put in a change of address, it can't be forwarded to the new address, even if only next door, it is returned as undeliverable.

When done properly and not just to target voters likely to vote for an opponent, then it is legitimate, the Republican party tends to only target voters likely to vote Democratic, that is voter suppression. Why do you think they only target likely Democratic voters?

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 02:53:09   #
SkptkSumthin
 
I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat. Your phrase "only target...voters" seems to be an
attempt to set up a "straw man". Of course Republicans would want to stop frauds
attempting to vote for Democrats, and for good reason (see Broward County, Florida
2018, e.g.). If they suspected the Republicans of similar shenanigans, then Democrats
would certainly be justified in doing the exact same thing. As to voters who have moved,
it is an easy matter to verify your new address in the correct precinct with proper ident-
ification, and if there is still a question in the minds of the election judges, you will be
allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which will be verified and then counted if the reg-
ular ballot outcome is close.

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 03:32:22   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
SkptkSumthin wrote:
I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat. Your phrase "only target...voters" seems to be an
attempt to set up a "straw man". Of course Republicans would want to stop frauds
attempting to vote for Democrats, and for good reason (see Broward County, Florida
2018, e.g.). If they suspected the Republicans of similar shenanigans, then Democrats
would certainly be justified in doing the exact same thing. As to voters who have moved,
it is an easy matter to verify your new address in the correct precinct with proper ident-
ification, and if there is still a question in the minds of the election judges, you will be
allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which will be verified and then counted if the reg-
ular ballot outcome is close.
I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat. Your phrase &... (show quote)


Even with voting a "provisional ballot", it isn't certain that properly registered voters' votes will be counted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot#Rates_of_acceptance

If it wasn't an effective way to suppress votes, the Republicans wouldn't keep trying it. Your suggestion that the Democrats can do the same... Two wrongs don't make a right and why would you even suggest that ANY party should break the law?


Edit: Further reading, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression#United_States

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 16:38:55   #
SkptkSumthin
 
"When done properly and not just to target voters likely to vote for an opponenet,
then it is legitimate." If it is done properly, it is legitimate, no matter who it targets.
The point is to prevent people who are not entitled to vote from voting. There is nothing in what I have written that suggests anyone should break the law. You seem to believe
that efforts to stop vote fraud constitute "voter suppression", and indeed, the Democrat
party has made that argument before the lower courts you refer to. Sometimes judges
get it wrong, and a bad ruling will stand as "law" until it is overturned.
Provisional ballots are counted (after verification) when they could make a difference.
If a candidate has a 1000 vote lead, and there are only 100 provisional ballots, there is really no point in processing them.

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 16:38:59   #
SkptkSumthin
 
"When done properly and not just to target voters likely to vote for an opponenet,
then it is legitimate." If it is done properly, it is legitimate, no matter who it targets.
The point is to prevent people who are not entitled to vote from voting. There is nothing in what I have written that suggests anyone should break the law. You seem to believe
that efforts to stop vote fraud constitute "voter suppression", and indeed, the Democrat
party has made that argument before the lower courts you refer to. Sometimes judges
get it wrong, and a bad ruling will stand as "law" until it is overturned.
Provisional ballots are counted (after verification) when they could make a difference.
If a candidate has a 1000 vote lead, and there are only 100 provisional ballots, there is really no point in processing them.

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 16:46:05   #
Common_Sense_Matters (a regular here)
 
SkptkSumthin wrote:
"When done properly and not just to target voters likely to vote for an opponenet,
then it is legitimate." If it is done properly, it is legitimate, no matter who it targets.
The point is to prevent people who are not entitled to vote from voting. There is nothing in what I have written that suggests anyone should break the law. You seem to believe
that efforts to stop vote fraud constitute "voter suppression", and indeed, the Democrat
party has made that argument before the lower courts you refer to. Sometimes judges
get it wrong, and a bad ruling will stand as "law" until it is overturned.
Provisional ballots are counted (after verification) when they could make a difference.
If a candidate has a 1000 vote lead, and there are only 100 provisional ballots, there is really no point in processing them.
"When done properly and not just to target vo... (show quote)


If done just to target opposing voters then it isn't done right, how hard is that to comprehend?

| Reply
Mar 19, 2019 19:09:43   #
SkptkSumthin
 
My concern is about stopping vote fraud. That is very easy to understand, 'tho it
may be hard to accept.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.