Mail in voting - Democrats again the party of despotism

[Lesh]

This is taking a simple and accurate method and turning it into an agenda fulfilling nightmare.
“Expert analysis of each signature” would take many many months.
Libs don’t want results from this election because they fear the result.

So what you're saying is that absentee balloting (which Republicans have used for years) is not valid?

 

[Lesh]

The Facts About Mail-In Voting and Voter Fraud

President Trump has been baselessly warning that mail voting will lead to a “rigged election.” Here’s how states running mail elections track misconduct.

www.nytimes.com

 

[WEATHER53]

This is taking a simple and accurate method and turning it into an agenda fulfilling nightmare.
“Expert analysis of each signature” would take many many months.
Libs don’t want results from this election because they fear the result.

So what you're saying is that absentee balloting (which Republicans have used for years) is not valid?

That method has always been for a tiny minority and not the total voting public.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How is mail in voting a new system?

Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?

They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

That's your imagination, dope.

Bull shit, you made that up and you're completely wrong.

People die, they don't remove them from the voter registration rolls, they mail them a ballot. Anyone who gets that ballot can fill it out and mail it in. The person they voted for won't object. Can you think of why they won't object? LOL?

You don't understand that? How stupid are you?

Why do you make posts with no basis in fact or in law, and then call the poster you're responding to "stupid"?

Every four years, a couple of months before the election, Republicans start complaining about the "dead voters" who are coming out by the millions to cast their ballots. And they undertake to "purge" the voting lists of "inactive" voters right before the voting is set to begin. Like clockwork. So here we go again.

Donald J. Trump had 4 years to complete the process of "purging" the roles. And has chosen not to undertake the job. Stage one is to be send out letters to the inactive names on the voter rolls - those who haven't voted in any election for more than X years, and advise them that their name will be removed from the roll if they don't respond within X number of days. Letters which are returned to the issuing office under the heading of "moved" are then followed to determine what happened to the voter, and their new location.

For letters with no response at all, follow-up notices should be sent at 30 day intervals until the expiry of the time period. None of this process can be accomplished before this year's election.

Republicans tried a wholesale purging of the voter rolls right before the 2016 election, and the courts ordered that they could not do this without going through the process of notification, verification, and a reasonably time frame to respond. This is a process which will take years to complete and not one which can be done before mail in voting starts, in the next month.

"Use It or Lose It": The Problem of Purges from the Registration Rolls of Voters Who Don't Vote Regularly

Deleting registrants from voting rolls because they have not voted in several elections or because they have not confirmed their address has resulted in hundreds of thousands not being able to vote when they go to cast their ballot.

www.americanbar.org

I called you stupid because you claimed that it wasn't possible for someone to fill in someone else's ballot and mail it it. You earned stupid

Can you point me to any post where I said that?

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

I never said that at all, ya fuckin liar.

 

[kaz]

Can you point me to any post where I said that?

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

I never said that at all, ya fuckin liar.

That's what you said when I said they could do that. You're just stuck in lie your ass off mode

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Can you point me to any post where I said that?

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

I never said that at all, ya fuckin liar.

That's what you said when I said they could do that. You're just stuck in lie your ass off mode

That's what you said when I said they could do that. You're just stuck in lie your ass off mode

Quote it, loser.

 

[kaz]

Can you point me to any post where I said that?

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

Yes. It's in the conversation in your quote, actually. Hutch said people can't mail in someone else's ballot when they are dead and you agreed with him

I never said that at all, ya fuckin liar.

That's what you said when I said they could do that. You're just stuck in lie your ass off mode

That's what you said when I said they could do that. You're just stuck in lie your ass off mode

Quote it, loser.

Obviously you saw it since it was in this chain and you just cut it when you asked me for the quote. Here you go, liar

They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

That's your imagination, dope.

Note, you will not now admit I was right even though I showed you the quote because you're a shemale. A flaming fag with no testicles

 

[BWK]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

What rules are you talking about? The rules where many Republican Floridians voted by mail previously, and that there is no evidence of fraud? Hayes: Trump plan is to attack legitimacy of voting system while also undermining it Mail in voting is not just a Democrat thing. Nice try.

 

[BWK]

How is mail in voting a new system?

Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?

Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.

Most of those don't mail ballots to everyone automatically, you have to request them. Now what if you answer the question?

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

When one party is actively engaged in an all-out campaign to suppress voter turnout they can suck it. You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?

No, he doesn't. That's why they are shitting their pants over a practice that is very common with Republicans and will be much more common with Democrats. They can't suppress the vote like they did in 2016 when they closed down 868 polling places in the south in minority areas. All they can do at this point is cheat.

 

[BWK]

How is mail in voting a new system?

Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?

You still have to ask for them. WTF are you talking about?

 

[Seawytch]

This is taking a simple and accurate method and turning it into an agenda fulfilling nightmare.
“Expert analysis of each signature” would take many many months.
Libs don’t want results from this election because they fear the result.

So what you're saying is that absentee balloting (which Republicans have used for years) is not valid?

That method has always been for a tiny minority and not the total voting public.

A tiny minority? Entire states vote exclusively by mail and have for years. In 2016 over 20% of all votes were cast by mail.

 

[BWK]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

US troops routinely vote by mail. Why canât the rest of America do the same?

Congress has supporting members of the military to vote by mail since the Civil War, and should ensure that all Americans can safely and effectively vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, says the author of this commentary.

www.militarytimes.com

Whether or not you support mail in voting is not the question in this thread. Again:

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

The basic rules are that people can use mail-in-voting. Republicans cut their own feet out from under themselves thinking that by closing so many polling places, voters wouldn't go another legal route. So, no legal rules have changed. Get a friggin clue.

 

[kaz]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

What rules are you talking about? The rules where many Republican Floridians voted by mail previously, and that there is no evidence of fraud? Hayes: Trump plan is to attack legitimacy of voting system while also undermining it Mail in voting is not just a Democrat thing. Nice try.

Now that's a wild pitch. You gave an example of a case where the parties worked together and agreed. That's not what my OP is about. Try again:

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

 

[kaz]

How is mail in voting a new system?

Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?

Didn't you get the memo? Mail in voting is somehow just fine in states where a lot of old people live.

Most of those don't mail ballots to everyone automatically, you have to request them. Now what if you answer the question?

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

When one party is actively engaged in an all-out campaign to suppress voter turnout they can suck it. You want every eligible voter to have an ample opportunity to vote don't you?

No, he doesn't. That's why they are shitting their pants over a practice that is very common with Republicans and will be much more common with Democrats. They can't suppress the vote like they did in 2016 when they closed down 868 polling places in the south in minority areas. All they can do at this point is cheat.

Just more DNC talking points

 

[kaz]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

US troops routinely vote by mail. Why canât the rest of America do the same?

Congress has supporting members of the military to vote by mail since the Civil War, and should ensure that all Americans can safely and effectively vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, says the author of this commentary.

www.militarytimes.com

Whether or not you support mail in voting is not the question in this thread. Again:

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

The basic rules are that people can use mail-in-voting. Republicans cut their own feet out from under themselves thinking that by closing so many polling places, voters wouldn't go another legal route. So, no legal rules have changed. Get a friggin clue.

More DNC talking points

 

[Seawytch]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

What rules are you talking about? The rules where many Republican Floridians voted by mail previously, and that there is no evidence of fraud? Hayes: Trump plan is to attack legitimacy of voting system while also undermining it Mail in voting is not just a Democrat thing. Nice try.

Now that's a wild pitch. You gave an example of a case where the parties worked together and agreed. That's not what my OP is about. Try again:

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

What basic rule do you allege has been changed? You claimed your rights were being taken away. What right has been taken away? BWK, you might have to ask him. Kaz is a pussy and pretends to ignore me. Poor baby lost too many debates I guess.

 

[Seawytch]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

I say no also.
Just do like its been done since the civil war.
Do it like our military votes.

US troops routinely vote by mail. Why canât the rest of America do the same?

Congress has supporting members of the military to vote by mail since the Civil War, and should ensure that all Americans can safely and effectively vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, says the author of this commentary.

www.militarytimes.com

Whether or not you support mail in voting is not the question in this thread. Again:

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

The basic rules are that people can use mail-in-voting. Republicans cut their own feet out from under themselves thinking that by closing so many polling places, voters wouldn't go another legal route. So, no legal rules have changed. Get a friggin clue.

More DNC talking points

More lame dodging.

 

[busybee01]

This thread is not about whether or not government mailing ballots all over the place without being prompted is a good idea or not. I think it's not, but that's for another thread.

The parties of course are competing with each other. And realistically, there are only two parties that win any substantial number of elections. Fair play in all competitions is that rules are agreed on before the competition by the contestants.

That Democrats are ramming a new system down everyone's throats is in itself wrong and despotic. The parties should agree to changing the system of deciding who wins those competitions before the competition. One party should not be able to unilaterally change the rules themselves on their own.

Democrats keep saying we're a "democracy." Well, when one side is deciding how we determine the winner, it's not. Democrats are more and more like any despotic government that decides how elections will be run and who will win.

If mail in ballots are better, then we need to take the time and figure out how to make it work so both sides are comfortable.

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

I say no. Republicans should not be able to do it either

You have several flaws in your post. Nothing was jammed down anyone's throat. The fact is that the only reason that some Republicans like Trump oppse it is because the larger the turnout the more likely he is to lose. The Republican in Iowa who oversees elections sent out requests to every registered voter. The RNC is even pushing people to vote by mail. Making it easier to vote is not determining the election or despotic. You are the one who is a despot.

What you're doing is making the lame argument that if one Republican agreed to something anywhere then all Republicans agreed to it everywhere. Each State is different.

And you say flaw in my post, but nowhere honey did I say no mail in voting. In any state that wants to increase mail in voting, the parties should work together. And they will come up with different answers.

A Republican agreeing to something in Iowa is a Republican agreeing to something in Iowa. No less, but no more

That assumes the Republicans want to participate. In too ,any states, Republicans are the problem rather than the solution.

That's just more of your empty, meaningless blather. You're just a hate filled ideologue

You are the one who is hatefilled. All you have to do is look at Trump's arguments against mail in voting. Trump said it himself. The greater the turnout is, he loses.

He was referring to people voting multiple times, not multiple people voting, dumb ass. You're a liar, you know that

You are the liar. Republicans know the greater the turnout the less chance they have of winning.

 

[Seawytch]

How is mail in voting a new system?

Because in the past you had to ask for a ballot. They didn't just send out ballots to everyone alive or dead they can imagine.

You didn't know that? Seriously? Where have you been, Antarctica?

You still have to ask for them. WTF are you talking about?

In Washington, Oregon, Colorado they have been mailing ballots to all voters, unrequested. They have been doing it for years and years. Because of COVID, additional states like California (who passed the Voter's Choice Act long before COVID) will be mailing a ballot automatically to all registered voters. They don't have to be requested in advance.

Trump sycophants only started to get upset about mailing ballots to all registered voters in the past few months. You won't find a single concern or complaint from them about VBM in WA, OR or CO prior to a couple months ago...when their cult leader started looking down the barrel of a loss.

They are as transparent as glass. We SEE how desperate and pathetic they are.

 

[busybee01]

So the question to address in the thread: Should one party be able to unilaterally be able to change the basic rules of the game over the objections of the other party?

Yes, within reason. Voting is a matter controlled by the state within guidelines set by the U.S. Constitution. If both governor and legislature of the state are controlled by one political party then of course they have leeway to some extent on voting procedures. However, the judicial branch of government is there to act upon any objection based on injustice.

For example, I'm sure the Democrats would follow through with a lawsuit if the GOP here in Arizona had passed a law this past Spring requiring mail-in voting as the only means to vote in yesterday's primary and this November's general election. I'm pretty sure the court would agree that it disenfranchises a good number of Native-American voters living on reservations on roads with no names where mail delivery is problematic at best.

Thank you! One of the few people who made an actual attempt to answer the question.

My question doesn't really specify the Federal level. I wanted to point that out. I don't think new rules should be rammed down either party's throat against their objections at the State or Federal level.

If Democrats really believed in democracy, this is the last thing they would do. Think about it. Democracy relies on that when you lose, you accept the results because the process was fair.

Doesn't that bother you? That ballots are being mailed all the hell over and half the country thinks that's not a valid way to determine who won an election? It is just part of ending belief in the American system

Again these are not new rules. Nevada has had absentee balloting in place for a long time. Mail in balloting has been in place for some time. Worth noting that many stateas run by Republicans have refused to allow voters to even vote absentee without excuses. You are not concerned about the fact that Republicans are ignoring Democrats.

There is no evidence that ballots are beingt mailed willy nilly. A big majority support mail in balloting. You are in the clear minority.

OK, so just to be clear. Your standard is that if any Democrat anywhere agrees to something, that is binding on you that you agreed to it. That's what you're arguing. That's just stupid

You are stupid. Your whole argument is stupid. Nevada has had absentee balloting for some time. Mail in balloting is not that much different. They certainly have safeguards in place to prevent fraud.