Topic: Right wing mayor candidate for LA getting his ballots thrown onto the street.
Mr. Shitting Blood and Glass started this discussion 1 month ago #135,591
Imagine voting tho, lel.https://defiantamerica.com/man-posts-video-allegedly-showing-spencer-pratt-ballots-scattered-across-la-streets-video/
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 57 minutes later[^] [v] #1,440,689
Reminds me of those people who still complain about the 2020 elections.
Not that the left is any better but the right could have all the power in the world and they’ll still be upset because they were met with resistance.
Not that the left is any better but the right could have all the power in the world and they’ll still be upset because they were met with resistance.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,698
@previous (B)
It's hard to believe the Democrats want to play fair when they are against voter ID. There's no reasonable explanation for why a voter wouldn't have an ID, you need it to get a job, buy a beer, or go to the bank. It's clearly voter fraud.
It's hard to believe the Democrats want to play fair when they are against voter ID. There's no reasonable explanation for why a voter wouldn't have an ID, you need it to get a job, buy a beer, or go to the bank. It's clearly voter fraud.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,707
@previous (C)
Because its redundant. You have to register to even vote via DMV, official gov websites, etc. The form asks you for practically everything including your driver's license, social security and citizenship status.
You cannot finesse that and hope the government wont find out so why add an extra unnecessary layer to already secure, well functioning system?
> you need it to get a job, buy a beer, or go to the bank. It's clearly voter fraud.
You need an ID to get a job, buy a beer or go to bank? yeah guess we already have to give our ID at the polls as well. Can't imagine a poll site that let just anybody in to vote whether a blue or a red state. To call it voter fraud there would need to be legal proof that there was indeed voter fraud. To which from my understanding none has been found.
Like I understand it's cool and hip right now to dunk on democrats and by all means go for it but clearly there's a structural flaw in your argument and a bit of google or even taking a trip to your local DMV and look at the voter registration forms and you'll see that the measures in place have always worked and there was never an error.
Because its redundant. You have to register to even vote via DMV, official gov websites, etc. The form asks you for practically everything including your driver's license, social security and citizenship status.
You cannot finesse that and hope the government wont find out so why add an extra unnecessary layer to already secure, well functioning system?
> you need it to get a job, buy a beer, or go to the bank. It's clearly voter fraud.
You need an ID to get a job, buy a beer or go to bank? yeah guess we already have to give our ID at the polls as well. Can't imagine a poll site that let just anybody in to vote whether a blue or a red state. To call it voter fraud there would need to be legal proof that there was indeed voter fraud. To which from my understanding none has been found.
Like I understand it's cool and hip right now to dunk on democrats and by all means go for it but clearly there's a structural flaw in your argument and a bit of google or even taking a trip to your local DMV and look at the voter registration forms and you'll see that the measures in place have always worked and there was never an error.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 34 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,709
@previous (D)
> yeah guess we already have to give our ID at the polls as well. Can't imagine a poll site that let just anybody in to vote whether a blue or a red state.
That's not true, and you can easily look this up. California does not have an ID requirement for voters at polling stations.
Why do you think democrats vote against these laws and make it a point to say it during their campaigns?
It's not some principal of avoiding redundancy, many democratic laws put forward are already legislated via the civil rights act but they still push for them. Nothing wrong with that, but it should make you wonder, why not just say "sure, lets add ID requirements to the law since its essentially already there. That will take this talking point away from the Republicans, that's a win"?
> yeah guess we already have to give our ID at the polls as well. Can't imagine a poll site that let just anybody in to vote whether a blue or a red state.
That's not true, and you can easily look this up. California does not have an ID requirement for voters at polling stations.
Why do you think democrats vote against these laws and make it a point to say it during their campaigns?
It's not some principal of avoiding redundancy, many democratic laws put forward are already legislated via the civil rights act but they still push for them. Nothing wrong with that, but it should make you wonder, why not just say "sure, lets add ID requirements to the law since its essentially already there. That will take this talking point away from the Republicans, that's a win"?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,750
Spencer Pratt got 25 percent of the vote so you'd expect 25 percent of discarded ballots to have his name on them, assuming a random distribution. Also the video doesn't show how many ballots are there or what % are unmarked or marked for other candidates. Really makes you 🤔.
@previous (C)
Needing voter ID to vote is dumb and very arbitrary with what forms of ID are acceptable anyway. Look up the ways you can get around needing a photo ID in extremely Republican West Virginia, for example.
@previous (C)
Needing voter ID to vote is dumb and very arbitrary with what forms of ID are acceptable anyway. Look up the ways you can get around needing a photo ID in extremely Republican West Virginia, for example.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,757
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Needing voter ID to vote is dumb and very arbitrary with what forms of ID are acceptable anyway.
That's already established. State ID will let you buy a beer or verify your identity at the bank. Just use the exact same card.
> Look up the ways you can get around needing a photo ID in extremely Republican West Virginia, for example.
This is still beside the point. WV Republicans are not in a political battle to stop Democrats from requiring stricter identity verification.
A lax system isn't the issue, the issue is that Democrats act like it's an unreasonable request to have proof of ID to vote when you need it for many other things in society.
> Needing voter ID to vote is dumb and very arbitrary with what forms of ID are acceptable anyway.
That's already established. State ID will let you buy a beer or verify your identity at the bank. Just use the exact same card.
> Look up the ways you can get around needing a photo ID in extremely Republican West Virginia, for example.
This is still beside the point. WV Republicans are not in a political battle to stop Democrats from requiring stricter identity verification.
A lax system isn't the issue, the issue is that Democrats act like it's an unreasonable request to have proof of ID to vote when you need it for many other things in society.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,760
@1,440,709 (C)
voter ID as a policy category is too vague to concede. It depends entirely on implementation, and Republican-authored voter ID bills historically define acceptable IDs in ways that skew toward demographics that vote Republican (gun licenses yes, student IDs no, etc.). Conceding the principle without controlling the implementation just hands them the win they actually want.
and if anything we already have the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 which conceded the baseline and yet Republicans still push for stricter state-level laws. The REAL ID Act of 2005 kicked in last year fully mandated yet you still want more restrictions.
Like I understand not wanting the country to be fully blue because J6 made a point that god forbid democrats control the government republicans/conservatives are not gonna take it lying down. I get that.
But not only is the voter ID/Save America Act redundant but you rather inconvenience American citizens with voter rights and first time voters just to ensure democrats dont catch a win.
Republicans would be no better than democrats in that regard. Especially if you supposedly champion freeze peach, gun rights, voter rights, you know "freedom" and less government involvement.
voter ID as a policy category is too vague to concede. It depends entirely on implementation, and Republican-authored voter ID bills historically define acceptable IDs in ways that skew toward demographics that vote Republican (gun licenses yes, student IDs no, etc.). Conceding the principle without controlling the implementation just hands them the win they actually want.
and if anything we already have the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 which conceded the baseline and yet Republicans still push for stricter state-level laws. The REAL ID Act of 2005 kicked in last year fully mandated yet you still want more restrictions.
Like I understand not wanting the country to be fully blue because J6 made a point that god forbid democrats control the government republicans/conservatives are not gonna take it lying down. I get that.
But not only is the voter ID/Save America Act redundant but you rather inconvenience American citizens with voter rights and first time voters just to ensure democrats dont catch a win.
Republicans would be no better than democrats in that regard. Especially if you supposedly champion freeze peach, gun rights, voter rights, you know "freedom" and less government involvement.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,761
@1,440,757 (C)
> the issue is that Democrats act like it's an unreasonable request to have proof of ID to vote when you need it for many other things in society.
Well now that just sounds like your personal opinion on the matter. maybe to you it seems like democrats make like an unreasonable request but people provide their IDs regardless.
> the issue is that Democrats act like it's an unreasonable request to have proof of ID to vote when you need it for many other things in society.
Well now that just sounds like your personal opinion on the matter. maybe to you it seems like democrats make like an unreasonable request but people provide their IDs regardless.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,766
spending billions in administrative overhead to solve a problem that doesn't demonstrably exist, while guaranteeing millions of legitimate citizens get caught in the bureaucratic crossfire. Doesn't really read as "election security" but more of just expensive voter suppression with extra steps.
If you dont want democrats then vote them out like a normal person. If the knicks won after making a comeback then I'm sure republicans can secure some dubs during the midterms. Plus you guys got Trump as president and congress more or less is still predominately red anyway so I dont see what the issue is.
If you dont want democrats then vote them out like a normal person. If the knicks won after making a comeback then I'm sure republicans can secure some dubs during the midterms. Plus you guys got Trump as president and congress more or less is still predominately red anyway so I dont see what the issue is.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 34 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,783
@1,440,761 (D)
Yes, my opinion is that making an issue of a small ID requirement is unreasonable.
If you need it for low ABV beers and fireworks, showing it for an election isn't an undue request.
Even if you are looking at the evidence and the very low rates of confirmed voter fraud are convincing you there is no threat, isn't it a very good way to increase the perceived legitimacy of election and simultaneously take away a Republican talking point? They could even send back a counter bill that turned it into an inefficient beaurocratic operation to create more jobs.
There's no situation where the politicians approve that bill, because they know it would end their career.
Yes, my opinion is that making an issue of a small ID requirement is unreasonable.
If you need it for low ABV beers and fireworks, showing it for an election isn't an undue request.
Even if you are looking at the evidence and the very low rates of confirmed voter fraud are convincing you there is no threat, isn't it a very good way to increase the perceived legitimacy of election and simultaneously take away a Republican talking point? They could even send back a counter bill that turned it into an inefficient beaurocratic operation to create more jobs.
There's no situation where the politicians approve that bill, because they know it would end their career.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,786
@1,440,757 (C)
> WV Republicans are not in a political battle to stop Democrats from requiring stricter identity verification.
Yes and when the dastardly Democrats are unable to oppose strict voting laws, like in WV, Republicans let you vote without ID if a pollworker says they have known you for at least 6 months. Which should give you a hint as to how seriously they actually take this Voter ID garbage.
> That's already established. State ID will let you buy a beer or verify your identity at the bank. Just use the exact same card.
There are lots of forms of ID, restricting it to the 2 or 3 forms of ID a state happens to allow is inane. No Passports? Military IDs? Every state also issues drivers licenses to non-citizens, so showing a Drivers License doesn't prove anything about your eligibility to vote. I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. What specific voting fraud behavior does presenting an ID to vote actually prevent?
> WV Republicans are not in a political battle to stop Democrats from requiring stricter identity verification.
Yes and when the dastardly Democrats are unable to oppose strict voting laws, like in WV, Republicans let you vote without ID if a pollworker says they have known you for at least 6 months. Which should give you a hint as to how seriously they actually take this Voter ID garbage.
> That's already established. State ID will let you buy a beer or verify your identity at the bank. Just use the exact same card.
There are lots of forms of ID, restricting it to the 2 or 3 forms of ID a state happens to allow is inane. No Passports? Military IDs? Every state also issues drivers licenses to non-citizens, so showing a Drivers License doesn't prove anything about your eligibility to vote. I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. What specific voting fraud behavior does presenting an ID to vote actually prevent?
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,794
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Yes and when the dastardly Democrats are unable to oppose strict voting laws, like in WV, Republicans let you vote without ID if a pollworker says they have known you for at least 6 months. Which should give you a hint as to how seriously they actually take this Voter ID garbage.
Republicans think some states have fraud, so they are pushing for rules that would apply to all 50 states including West Virginia. Democrats are vocally opposed to this, they are not just apathetic.
> There are lots of forms of ID, restricting it to the 2 or 3 forms of ID a state happens to allow is inane. No Passports? Military IDs? Every state also issues drivers licenses to non-citizens, so showing a Drivers License doesn't prove anything about your eligibility to vote. I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. What specific voting fraud behavior does presenting an ID to vote actually prevent?
It's about confirming that you are the person registered, the person who's name is tied to that ballot.
You can use military ID to buy beer, you are trying to make it look complicated but everyone already knows how to do this with a cashier. It wouldn't have to be any different at a polling station. Show your ID, get the ballot tied to you, and vote.
> Yes and when the dastardly Democrats are unable to oppose strict voting laws, like in WV, Republicans let you vote without ID if a pollworker says they have known you for at least 6 months. Which should give you a hint as to how seriously they actually take this Voter ID garbage.
Republicans think some states have fraud, so they are pushing for rules that would apply to all 50 states including West Virginia. Democrats are vocally opposed to this, they are not just apathetic.
> There are lots of forms of ID, restricting it to the 2 or 3 forms of ID a state happens to allow is inane. No Passports? Military IDs? Every state also issues drivers licenses to non-citizens, so showing a Drivers License doesn't prove anything about your eligibility to vote. I don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish. What specific voting fraud behavior does presenting an ID to vote actually prevent?
It's about confirming that you are the person registered, the person who's name is tied to that ballot.
You can use military ID to buy beer, you are trying to make it look complicated but everyone already knows how to do this with a cashier. It wouldn't have to be any different at a polling station. Show your ID, get the ballot tied to you, and vote.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,797
@1,440,757 (C)
> > Needing voter ID to vote is dumb and very arbitrary with what forms of ID are acceptable anyway.
>
> That's already established. State ID will let you buy a beer or verify your identity at the bank. Just use the exact same card.
>
> > Look up the ways you can get around needing a photo ID in extremely Republican West Virginia, for example.
>
> This is still beside the point. WV Republicans are not in a political battle to stop Democrats from requiring stricter identity verification.
>
> A lax system isn't the issue, the issue is that Democrats act like it's an unreasonable request to have proof of ID to vote when you need it for many other things in society.
Just simplify ID access. Every DMV will provide a basic ID for less than $20, like most do. I’ve never understood who doesn’t have ID and how they interact with society. You need it for benefits, to buy alcohol.
> > Needing voter ID to vote is dumb and very arbitrary with what forms of ID are acceptable anyway.
>
> That's already established. State ID will let you buy a beer or verify your identity at the bank. Just use the exact same card.
>
> > Look up the ways you can get around needing a photo ID in extremely Republican West Virginia, for example.
>
> This is still beside the point. WV Republicans are not in a political battle to stop Democrats from requiring stricter identity verification.
>
> A lax system isn't the issue, the issue is that Democrats act like it's an unreasonable request to have proof of ID to vote when you need it for many other things in society.
Just simplify ID access. Every DMV will provide a basic ID for less than $20, like most do. I’ve never understood who doesn’t have ID and how they interact with society. You need it for benefits, to buy alcohol.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,801
@previous (F)
A poor person would do anything for an ID that unlocked hundreds or thousands in benefits.
A disorganized substance abuser would neglect everything in their life and still find a way to get the card they need to buy beer and cigs.
And they still try to convince us that it's about accessibility. There are nonprofits that will pay the bill, there are DMVs that will waive the fee if you show some documented hardship like getting mail at a shelter.
A poor person would do anything for an ID that unlocked hundreds or thousands in benefits.
A disorganized substance abuser would neglect everything in their life and still find a way to get the card they need to buy beer and cigs.
And they still try to convince us that it's about accessibility. There are nonprofits that will pay the bill, there are DMVs that will waive the fee if you show some documented hardship like getting mail at a shelter.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 month ago, 25 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,803
@1,440,794 (C)
> Everyone knows what would happen if that passed. WV would look the same, and California would have a lot of changed or absent votes.
The only people who "know" this are people who buy already buy into this slopaganda. It's not like Democrats are terrified that their secret plan to...run up the popular vote in states that already comfortable vote for them by 15%+ margins? It's delusional.
> It's about confirming that you are the person registered, the person who's name is tied to that ballot.
This is a horrendous way to commit voter fraud. If anyone actually commits voter fraud like this they will never affect any election results. I am a pollworker in a state that has a Voter ID law. Here is how that attempt at voter fraud would go.
We will assume that we are in a precinct with 100 registered voters and a 60 percent turnout.
You are Steve Fakevoter. You are the first voter of the day. You come up to me and say "Hi I am here to vote. My name is *evil snicker* John Realvoter. I live at 123 Main Street. No I don't have any ID, just trust me bro." I look up John Realvoter in our electornic pollbook, see that there is a John Realvoter who lives at 123 Main Street. I mark John as having checked in, and send him to go to the next table to pick up a ballot. He fills out the ballot, casts it into the machine, does a maniacal evil cackle, and walks out. Has there been successful voter fraud?
Probably not. There's 60% turnout so there's a 60% chance that the person you just impersonated comes in to vote anyway, and then you're probably fucked. He will try to vote, the system will have him marked as already voting. He will probably be able to cast a provisional ballot and then the board of elections would review to determine if it should be counted. And this is if it's a 1-off fluke. In the elections I've worked at, cumulatively there have been thousands of votes cast and nothing like that has ever happened.
If there were some kind of organized fraud (e.g. not just 1 Steve Fakevoter but lets say 25, all coordinating so they don't reuse names used by prior fraudulent voters), then you will have a dozen people all insisting that they haven't voted, but they are marked as already having voted. Regular voting is probably getting shut down at the precinct. Cops are getting called, the election board is for sure going to send people down immediately to investigate. You would probably have every vote from that point be a provisional accompanied by a signed sworn statement of identity. This is just NOT how you would commit voter fraud if you wanted to. The odds you will get away with it are essentially zero if you do it at any scale enough to have any kind of impact. It's just a fantasy and not even the good kind where you're rich and powerful or whatever.
> Everyone knows what would happen if that passed. WV would look the same, and California would have a lot of changed or absent votes.
The only people who "know" this are people who buy already buy into this slopaganda. It's not like Democrats are terrified that their secret plan to...run up the popular vote in states that already comfortable vote for them by 15%+ margins? It's delusional.
> It's about confirming that you are the person registered, the person who's name is tied to that ballot.
This is a horrendous way to commit voter fraud. If anyone actually commits voter fraud like this they will never affect any election results. I am a pollworker in a state that has a Voter ID law. Here is how that attempt at voter fraud would go.
We will assume that we are in a precinct with 100 registered voters and a 60 percent turnout.
You are Steve Fakevoter. You are the first voter of the day. You come up to me and say "Hi I am here to vote. My name is *evil snicker* John Realvoter. I live at 123 Main Street. No I don't have any ID, just trust me bro." I look up John Realvoter in our electornic pollbook, see that there is a John Realvoter who lives at 123 Main Street. I mark John as having checked in, and send him to go to the next table to pick up a ballot. He fills out the ballot, casts it into the machine, does a maniacal evil cackle, and walks out. Has there been successful voter fraud?
Probably not. There's 60% turnout so there's a 60% chance that the person you just impersonated comes in to vote anyway, and then you're probably fucked. He will try to vote, the system will have him marked as already voting. He will probably be able to cast a provisional ballot and then the board of elections would review to determine if it should be counted. And this is if it's a 1-off fluke. In the elections I've worked at, cumulatively there have been thousands of votes cast and nothing like that has ever happened.
If there were some kind of organized fraud (e.g. not just 1 Steve Fakevoter but lets say 25, all coordinating so they don't reuse names used by prior fraudulent voters), then you will have a dozen people all insisting that they haven't voted, but they are marked as already having voted. Regular voting is probably getting shut down at the precinct. Cops are getting called, the election board is for sure going to send people down immediately to investigate. You would probably have every vote from that point be a provisional accompanied by a signed sworn statement of identity. This is just NOT how you would commit voter fraud if you wanted to. The odds you will get away with it are essentially zero if you do it at any scale enough to have any kind of impact. It's just a fantasy and not even the good kind where you're rich and powerful or whatever.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,804
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Good points, the democrats should just vote Yes so that they can shove it in the Republicans faces and gain legitimacy with the swing voters.
Good points, the democrats should just vote Yes so that they can shove it in the Republicans faces and gain legitimacy with the swing voters.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 month ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,805
@previous (C)
I do think there is an argument that Democrats should vote for Voter ID because Republicans are now the party of low trust, low propensity, uneducated voters. Those kinds of voters are less likely to have current IDs. Voter ID laws would on average probably prevent more Republicans from voting than Democrats, resulting in a positive outcome for Democrats. But it will prevent just about 0 fraudulent votes from being cast, and hinder tens of thousands of real votes from being cast, and Democrats are on principle opposed to that. If I were running the Democrats I'd find which kinds of IDs were most likely to be used by our voters and which were most likely to be used by Republicans, then make a bill that allows all the kinds that Dems are more likely to have, and forbid the kinds that Republicans are more likely to have.
I do think there is an argument that Democrats should vote for Voter ID because Republicans are now the party of low trust, low propensity, uneducated voters. Those kinds of voters are less likely to have current IDs. Voter ID laws would on average probably prevent more Republicans from voting than Democrats, resulting in a positive outcome for Democrats. But it will prevent just about 0 fraudulent votes from being cast, and hinder tens of thousands of real votes from being cast, and Democrats are on principle opposed to that. If I were running the Democrats I'd find which kinds of IDs were most likely to be used by our voters and which were most likely to be used by Republicans, then make a bill that allows all the kinds that Dems are more likely to have, and forbid the kinds that Republicans are more likely to have.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,806
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Schumer should put forward a bill to pay for free one-way trips to Israel for any jew that wants it.
Schumer should put forward a bill to pay for free one-way trips to Israel for any jew that wants it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,807
@previous (C)
I don't think that would help prevent voter fraud but it could be a good idea on its own.
I don't think that would help prevent voter fraud but it could be a good idea on its own.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,861
@1,440,801 (C)
> A poor person would do anything for an ID that unlocked hundreds or thousands in benefits.
>
> A disorganized substance abuser would neglect everything in their life and still find a way to get the card they need to buy beer and cigs.
>
> And they still try to convince us that it's about accessibility. There are nonprofits that will pay the bill, there are DMVs that will waive the fee if you show some documented hardship like getting mail at a shelter.
Interesting. The accessibility argument is falling even flatter. If you’re not employed then what is the hardship of waiting at the DMV?
> A poor person would do anything for an ID that unlocked hundreds or thousands in benefits.
>
> A disorganized substance abuser would neglect everything in their life and still find a way to get the card they need to buy beer and cigs.
>
> And they still try to convince us that it's about accessibility. There are nonprofits that will pay the bill, there are DMVs that will waive the fee if you show some documented hardship like getting mail at a shelter.
Interesting. The accessibility argument is falling even flatter. If you’re not employed then what is the hardship of waiting at the DMV?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 25 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,863
@previous (G)
The DMV is boring as hell.
I don’t care about the rest of this thread, I just came here to complain about the government.
The DMV is boring as hell.
I don’t care about the rest of this thread, I just came here to complain about the government.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,864
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Honestly, I don’t even care about voter fraud. Just make the DMV an app, close all of them, and I’ll be happy.
Honestly, I don’t even care about voter fraud. Just make the DMV an app, close all of them, and I’ll be happy.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,865
Honestly, online voting could be a good idea. Yeah it might get hacked… then our president will get chosen by a smart person, which is actually a much better system than democracy.
Anonymous H quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,866
Damn… I just found Tucker Carlson has another based opinion apart from his only other based opinion which is on traditional Japanese architecture.
https://youtu.be/ED28eRtq8Jg
https://youtu.be/ED28eRtq8Jg
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 6 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,952
@1,440,865 (H)
yeah sure until that system ends up putting a democrat president then suddenly everyone will bitch and moan again about "its clearly voter fraud! the systems were hack by the democrats!"
I'm just saying this non existent issue is nonexistent for a reason. It's clearly the case of tu quoque from the republican's side. I mean just refer to The 2018 NC-09 case.
The operative was Leslie McCrae Dowless, hired by Republican candidate Mark Harris's campaign. Dowless was indicted on charges related to absentee ballot collection and falsification.
yeah sure until that system ends up putting a democrat president then suddenly everyone will bitch and moan again about "its clearly voter fraud! the systems were hack by the democrats!"
I'm just saying this non existent issue is nonexistent for a reason. It's clearly the case of tu quoque from the republican's side. I mean just refer to The 2018 NC-09 case.
The operative was Leslie McCrae Dowless, hired by Republican candidate Mark Harris's campaign. Dowless was indicted on charges related to absentee ballot collection and falsification.