Raynine
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2023
- 1,088
- 1,663
- 1,938
My home city in New Hampshire is unique in the state; it is liberal. The city houses a newspaper and local radio programming, and it may be a little isolated in that sense. The city newspaper and radio programming are strong liberal advocates; they are what they are. The reality seen by some in the city may be different from other places. Are the people content they are being dealt with in good faith? Do some voters see the world in a way that does not jibe with what others may see as sensible?
An example:
Some cities are all-in on the concept that voter identification suppresses voting. The contradiction of that theory would seem plain to some but to many local readers and listeners that is not true. We all know that to drive a car in New Hampshire a driver’s license is required. That is so the driver can be identified. Would a careful mind conclude that a driver’s license should be illegal because it could suppress traffic? Obviously, that would be just weird. But voters are told that voter id’s suppress voting. Does this make sense?
Are voters told that a great new movement is underway to fundamentally change America and so things that don’t make sense are necessary to promote the “new way”? Are they told that this will just be done to get the movement off the ground, and then things will go back to the old way that made sense?
If Id’s prevent fraud in so many other facets of rights and benefits, would they not be necessary to stem that fraud in something as important as voting? Supposed suppressed voters all need identification to receive Social Security, SSI, Food Stamps, Medicare, Affordable Care Act etc. So, the argument that these suppressed individuals can’t get identification to vote is weak. A driver’s license or birth certificate is required for those benefits just as they check your Id when you go to vote locally.
So, why would fraud prevention not be an issue in National elections? Are city voters alert and skeptical about voter validity and honesty? How many of those voters are just going along with what they are told is right even if it makes no sense?
I wonder.
An example:
Some cities are all-in on the concept that voter identification suppresses voting. The contradiction of that theory would seem plain to some but to many local readers and listeners that is not true. We all know that to drive a car in New Hampshire a driver’s license is required. That is so the driver can be identified. Would a careful mind conclude that a driver’s license should be illegal because it could suppress traffic? Obviously, that would be just weird. But voters are told that voter id’s suppress voting. Does this make sense?
Are voters told that a great new movement is underway to fundamentally change America and so things that don’t make sense are necessary to promote the “new way”? Are they told that this will just be done to get the movement off the ground, and then things will go back to the old way that made sense?
If Id’s prevent fraud in so many other facets of rights and benefits, would they not be necessary to stem that fraud in something as important as voting? Supposed suppressed voters all need identification to receive Social Security, SSI, Food Stamps, Medicare, Affordable Care Act etc. So, the argument that these suppressed individuals can’t get identification to vote is weak. A driver’s license or birth certificate is required for those benefits just as they check your Id when you go to vote locally.
So, why would fraud prevention not be an issue in National elections? Are city voters alert and skeptical about voter validity and honesty? How many of those voters are just going along with what they are told is right even if it makes no sense?
I wonder.
