1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo set aside the idea of photos. Some elderly people never leave their bedroom, so how do we prove who that person is? We all agree there is no good answer.
As to why strict photo ID shouldn't exist, the reason is simple; they would disenfranchise tens of millions of US citizens otherwise eligible to vote:
"Fifteen percent of adult citizens (over 34.5 million people) either do not have a driver’s license or state ID or have one that may cause difficulties voting in states with strict photo ID laws. These difficulties inclu ...[text shortened]... /sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%202023%20survey%20Key%20Results%20Jan%202024%20%281%29.pdf
So, and to make the discussion more interesting , what can we do.? If we do not require photo ID, how do we keep an illegal Yemenite from voting in the presidential election of the United States.
How? Let us solve this problem for the good of the country.! we can get Sunhouse on TV to deliver the answer..
If it is not solved, then everyone who walks the ground in the United States of America can walk into a polling booth and vote for anyone in any race.
Edit: For the record, Susiane, a voter ID does not prove who someone is. Nor what he is. If not wearing a hoodie, it is likely human.
@no1marauder saidHuh?
Trump will be rated as one of our worst.
got us out of the Afghanistan disaster and left office with a strong economy
Trump is a raving lunatic.
@AverageJoe1 saidI already answered this:
So set aside the idea of photos. Some elderly people never leave their bedroom, so how do we prove who that person is? We all agree there is no good answer.
So, and to make the discussion more interesting , what can we do.? If we do not require photo ID, how do we keep an illegal Yemenite from voting in the presidential election of the United States.
How? Let ...[text shortened]... voter ID does not prove who someone is. Nor what he is. If not wearing a hoodie, it is likely human.
no1: Every State but North Dakota requires voters to register before they vote. Every State requires some form of ID to vote (I have to sign and have my signature match one on file in NY). 36 States already require a Photo ID or some other acceptable form of State issued ID.
@AverageJoe1 saidMaybe you should cut and paste an entire post rather than cutting it into incoherent pieces.
Huh?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidGranted, but like suzianne, you are supplanting (great word) PHOTO ID with things like voter ID card, or 'some form' of ID....you even say 'match signatures'!!!!!!! WHO, pray tell, is schooled in Forensic Document Examination, that will sit all day and verify signatures. Is there technology that can do that, because that is what it would take.
I already answered this:
no1: Every State but North Dakota requires voters to register before they vote. Every State requires some form of ID to vote (I have to sign and have my signature match one on file in NY). 36 States already require a Photo ID or some other acceptable form of State issued ID.
So do better. A voter ID ...proof of registration...that I got in the mail does NOT prove who I am.
It appears we are stuck with your solution. Someone can simply present a copy of an electric bill addressed to him, or maybe someone else's voter ID card and go vote!!!!! For Kamala!!! To save America. Suzianne for VP! Because, you dems will certainly win. You see, we don't have the illegals. You own them.
??? Have my signature match??/ dear god 🤔
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHere is a cut and paste of interest.
Maybe you should cut and paste an entire post rather than cutting it into incoherent pieces.
What of these proposals of a new liberal president would you adhere to ?
This is from a poster last week, ...what would you do if Trump was gone...
If I was the next president, I would remove everything he has put his name on, everything he tried to take credit for, everything he's done to ruin this once great country. I would indeed take the time to issue an Executive Order for every Executive Order he ever put his name on, revoking it in its entirety. I would tear down any monuments he made to himself, including the new Ballroom and his stupid Arch across the Potomac. I would reinstate all the Federal employees that either he or Musk fired, or, at the very least add to their time of service for the time they lost, for retirement purposes. I would bring back and fully fund the agencies he's destroyed. I would remove all tariffs. I would appoint as members of my Cabinet people who know far more about their department than I do. All promotions would come from within. I would bring back truth and transparency for all fed departments AND the White House. The Constitution would be King once more. I would expand the Supreme Court to get a majority of Justices who made decisions based solely on the Constitution and precedent. I would do my best to make it as if Trump never existed, and that is a promise. I would consider it a mission from God. ""
An interesting mind. Posts such as this leave me head-scratching. Do we not already base decisions on the Constitution? Dobbs (abortion goes to the states) is a perfect constitutional decision, for example. I am sure you would agree, so how would you respond, say, to this poster, who is seemingly mjsguided. Not being of your camp, I am at a loss to respond to such comments.
@AverageJoe1 said"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Here is a cut and paste of interest.
What of these proposals of a new liberal president would you adhere to ?
This is from a poster last week, ...what would you do if Trump was gone...
If I was the next president, I would remove everything he has put his name on, everything he tried to take credit for, everything he's done to ruin this once great country. I would i ...[text shortened]... r, who is seemingly mjsguided. Not being of your camp, I am at a loss to respond to such comments.
US Constitution 14th Amendment
Unless you don't think women have the same Natural Right to bodily sovereignty as men do, the Constitution says the opposite of what you claim.
@no1marauder saidI do not even know what you’re responding to. You would do better to write in plain logical English.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. [b]No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due ...[text shortened]... Natural Right to bodily sovereignty as men do, the Constitution says the opposite of what you claim.
You live just do not get logic. A call-in guy on a radio show just said, regarding the killings that happen with illegal immigrants, driving trucks, that more deaths happen by citizen truck drivers!!! What in the hell?
The issue is ‘issuing licenses to aliens that cannot drive!!! ‘ Do you people not get logic?!?! Common sense? Rationale??
I Cannot for the life of me see what you mean that ‘women have l rights about’ in response to my post above. You may be referring to the constitution and the abortion decision. So he takes off writing about women’s rights. I’m talking about the abortion decision, it was made following the provisions of the constitution. Normally a good lawyer would say, yes that was a proper ruling. They would certainly not start writing about women’s rights.
Help me, Rhonda
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidYOU brought up the Dobbs decision which was a refutation of the idea that woman have the same rights as men over their bodies. There's nothing in the Constitution supporting that and the 14th Amendment expressly declares differently.
I do not even know what you’re responding to. You would do better to write in plain logical English.
You live just do not get logic. A call-in guy on a radio show just said, regarding the killings that happen with illegal immigrants, driving trucks, that more deaths happen by citizen truck drivers!!! What in the hell?
The issue is ‘issuing licenses to aliens that ...[text shortened]... was a proper ruling. They would certainly not start writing about women’s rights.
Help me, Rhonda
@no1marauder saidOooohhhhh, you want to argue the merits of the trial. I thought it was universally agreed that the court did follow constitutional provisions and making that decision. So I’m surprised that you disagree, and that you think that the court has failed and should not have ruled as they did. My apologies.
YOU brought up the Dobbs decision which was a refutation of the idea that woman have the same rights as men over their bodies. There's nothing in the Constitution supporting that and the 14th Amendment expressly declares differently.
So, the issue here is that I wanted Suzanne to know that the constitution is always followed when making decisions . So in my surprise, you are saying they do not..
I am not keen on the fact of that case, nor do I have any expertise in trial law. So I will pass on such a discussion.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou thought wrong but since you only think what you are told to by right wing propaganda sites, that's hardly surprising. Most legal organizations condemned the ruling as the American Bar Association did:
Oooohhhhh, you want to argue the merits of the trial. I thought it was universally agreed that the court did follow constitutional provisions and making that decision. So I’m surprised that you disagree, and that you think that the court has failed and should not have ruled as they did. My apologies.
So, the issue here is that I wanted Suzanne to know that the consti ...[text shortened]... he fact of that case, nor do I have any expertise in trial law. So I will pass on such a discussion.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/06/aba-presidential-statement-re-dobbs-v-jackson/
@no1marauder saidIf SHouse discusses jet engines, I would abstain. If the result of the discussion would be Mott saying the B-29 was more reliable than the C-5, disagreeing with Sonhouse, I would side with neither.
You thought wrong but since you only think what you are told to by right wing propaganda sites, that's hardly surprising. Most legal organizations condemned the ruling as the American Bar Association did:
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/06/aba-presidential-statement-re-dobbs-v-jackson/
So goes a scotus case Yet, Suzianne jumps in with both feet. Free the Women!!!
SCOTUS applies best effort, and not all people, like ABA court mavericks, agree. Then, how could little old me ever weigh in with all those people. So I have to trust in the people that reason the most like I do, and assume that they have made the correct decision. It happens that the court leans my way, and therefore, I think they must have made the right decision.
You and ABA think otherwise, the reason courts exist. One reason I think that way is that they labor for hours and days over every element of this case. ABA guys do not know of discussions between nine judges
@AverageJoe1 saidWe know what they wrote which was the scope of women's rights are limited to what all-male legislatures put into office by an all-male electorate thought was appropriate more than 150 years ago.
If SHouse discusses jet engines, I would abstain. If the result of the discussion would be Mott saying the B-29 was more reliable than the C-5, disagreeing with Sonhouse, I would side with neither.
So goes a scotus case Yet, Suzianne jumps in with both feet. Free the Women!!!
SCOTUS applies best effort, and not all people, like ABA court mavericks, agree. Then ...[text shortened]... rs and days over every element of this case. ABA guys do not know of discussions between nine judges
@no1marauder saidYes, could have been a bad ruling. But I have to believe that if you yourself have unearthed what could be a good argument, I have to believe that they had considered that pesky factoid in their deliberations also, and concluded that it was not germane.
We know what they wrote which was the scope of women's rights are limited to what all-male legislatures put into office by an all-male electorate thought was appropriate more than 150 years ago.
And, no offense, Nat Law prob was not a consideration, either.
@AverageJoe1
So, they set up checkpoints to check people's ID's, but don't want ID's to vote.
How positively liberal of them.