Mitt Romney has written an editorial. It should prompt a national discussion. It won't.

RFK Jr has been living in California for decades but claims his primary residence is a spare room at friend’s house in New York and votes in their elections.
Cool, is that illegal?

Moreover, you’re upset about that but totally OK with the legal immigrants being counted in the census which objectively has a far more negative effect on our politics?

You’re not concerned about anything, but what the TV tells you to be concerned about.
 
And that’s why we hate him he fights for everyone, but the people that he should be fighting for he’s loyal to every other country, but his own every other in group, but his own and so willing and wanting to be liked by the people that utterly despise him.
I agree with you ....




... I think. :confused-84:

:lol:
 
Because screw your conspiracy theories.

It isn’t a conspiracy theory. If ID is not required, what prevents someone from giving someone else’s name that they know will not be voting and voting on their behalf? That isn’t a conspiracy theory that happens. If your grandfather is in a nursing home with dementia, what prevents you from casting his vote? Again, requiring photo ID is common sense. Those that oppose it don’t really want secure elections.
 
It isn’t a conspiracy theory. If ID is not required, what prevents someone from giving someone else’s name that they know will not be voting and voting on their behalf? That isn’t a conspiracy theory that happens. If your grandfather is in a nursing home with dementia, what prevents you from casting his vote? Again, requiring photo ID is common sense. Those that oppose it don’t really want secure elections.

Investigation after investigation. Audit after audit. Lawsuit after lawsuit.

Next to nothing.

when cheating happens it's uncovered.

 
This means your family is making at minimum half a million income every year.

I'm sorry, but it really isn't that big of a hardship. Not the kind of apocalyptic damage you're trying to make it out to be.

I remember graduating from college and earning very little, thinking how wealthy I’d feel making $100,000 a year. Compared to what I earned then, it seemed like I’d have endless disposable income. What you learn over time is that as income rises, expenses tend to rise with it.

Higher earners often take on more financial responsibilities. You start maxing out your 401(k) to prepare for retirement. You buy a home instead of renting, which increases housing costs and adds property taxes, insurance, repairs, and maintenance. You may upgrade your car, which again increases expenses. You start a family. Children are expensive. You might choose private school for a better or safer education. As income continues to grow, you may purchase a vacation home, which comes with significantly higher taxes and ongoing costs. You might also invest in rental or commercial property, which often requires years before expenses are fully offset by income.

Before long, you don’t have an extra $1,700 a month just sitting around.

Before you say it, of course, none of these things are strictly necessary. Someone doesn’t have to own a vacation home, drive a newer car, invest in property, or send their kids to private school. But these are commonly viewed as the rewards of success. Changing the rules so dramatically and targeting only people who have achieved that success, is fundamentally unfair.

You underestimate the broader economic impact. High earners would cut back on spending and reduce investment. Small business owners might be forced to raise prices or shut down entirely. Corporate payroll costs would rise sharply, leading to reduced hiring or lower wage growth. Do you really think companies would be eager to offer raises beyond $170,000(the current cap) if they knew each increase came with an additional 6% cost on top?

You’re expressing the same mindset I had when I first graduated. With experience comes perspective and eventually, wisdom.
 
Investigation after investigation. Audit after audit. Lawsuit after lawsuit.

Next to nothing.

when cheating happens it's uncovered.


Again, how much of a hardship is it to require photo ID? If it prevents 1000 cases of cheating out of 150 million nationwide, it is worth it.
 
Again, how much of a hardship is it to require photo ID? If it prevents 1000 cases of cheating out of 150 million nationwide, it is worth it.

I've addressed your issue many times.
 
I've addressed your issue many times.

Please remind me. Is requiring photo id to much of a hardship? It is not required in every state.
 
Last edited:
Romney, just another RINO loser who Trump destroyed. He can join Liz the turncoat over in the loser's lounge.
 
15th post
Good, then we are in agreement. The federal government should require that each state make photo ID mandatory in order to vote.

No, I won't Continue to repeat myself.
 
I remember graduating from college and earning very little, thinking how wealthy I’d feel making $100,000 a year. Compared to what I earned then, it seemed like I’d have endless disposable income. What you learn over time is that as income rises, expenses tend to rise with it.

Higher earners often take on more financial responsibilities. You start maxing out your 401(k) to prepare for retirement. You buy a home instead of renting, which increases housing costs and adds property taxes, insurance, repairs, and maintenance. You may upgrade your car, which again increases expenses. You start a family. Children are expensive. You might choose private school for a better or safer education. As income continues to grow, you may purchase a vacation home, which comes with significantly higher taxes and ongoing costs. You might also invest in rental or commercial property, which often requires years before expenses are fully offset by income.

Before long, you don’t have an extra $1,700 a month just sitting around.

Before you say it, of course, none of these things are strictly necessary. Someone doesn’t have to own a vacation home, drive a newer car, invest in property, or send their kids to private school. But these are commonly viewed as the rewards of success. Changing the rules so dramatically and targeting only people who have achieved that success, is fundamentally unfair.

You underestimate the broader economic impact. High earners would cut back on spending and reduce investment. Small business owners might be forced to raise prices or shut down entirely. Corporate payroll costs would rise sharply, leading to reduced hiring or lower wage growth. Do you really think companies would be eager to offer raises beyond $170,000(the current cap) if they knew each increase came with an additional 6% cost on top?

You’re expressing the same mindset I had when I first graduated. With experience comes perspective and eventually, wisdom.

Your “wisdom” has led to $38 trillion in debt.

It’s not wisdom at all. It’s just whining. Aw, you can’t afford your luxury car? Aw, you can’t afford high priced private schools? Aw, you can’t afford a bigger house? Aw, you can’t max out your 401k?
 
Blah, blah, blah. Investigation after investigation. Audit after audit. Lawsuit after lawsuit.

Next to nothing.
Then the left shouldn't be scared to make the process even more safe.
 
Back
Top Bottom