• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump says Republicans would never be elected again if it was easier to vote

aociswundumho said:
How about a basic civics test? Nothing partisan, just some basic questions about how the US government works, like the civics test immigrants must pass to become a US citizen.

You claim to want informed voters, this is a simple way to weed out those who are extremely ignorant regarding how our government works.
Click to expand...

While it would be nice for more people to understand that (BTW as much as it would blow holes in the utopian promises of those offering broad social support, it wouldn't bode well for the vote-suppressing corporate-fellating side of the aisle either), just as important, if not more would be having a populace actually conversant with the issues. And then, you'd still have to deal with preference.

Moreover if everyone had to be sufficiently educated in Civics to vote, the government (state or federal take your pick) would be obliged to ensure they had that education. There was a time they tried to exclude illiterate people as a means of stopping blacks from voting. A properly funded and regulated education system would be a basic requirement.

And then you'd get people who don't want a properly funded education system to teach civics because more people knowing about civics means more people voting. Chicken and the egg.

So how about applying the same standards the political Right applies to guns: voting is a universal right and every man and his dog gets as many as he can fit in the locker on the flatbed of his truck?
 
jghiretire said:
It was on other sources as well. But nice try.
Click to expand...

Not only a nice try but a success since you couldnt even come up with a real rebuttal. In no other source did he say easier. Thats media interpretation.
 
Fox News has built an empire by lying and subtly getting their ;) message across to white america.


Then Trump just says it about multiple things.



Very funny.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, he actually did say something like that:



He was talking about the Democrat's initial attempts to use the recent Covid-19 response bill to push a bunch of programs unrelated to the point of the bill. Among them was a rash of voter laws.

In fact, the Democrats were attempting to use the bill to change the voting processes. Expanding times for voting, absentee voting, all sorts of things that would stretch the process even more than it already is.
Click to expand...


Because during a pandemic, when we have social distancing in place, we can't have a hundred million plus Americans showing up to polling places where they all line up together in close proximity. Thus, we need to expanding early voting, mail in and absentee voting.

Why are you guys so scared of more American citizens being part of the electoral process?
 
aociswundumho said:
How about a basic civics test? Nothing partisan, just some basic questions about how the US government works, like the civics test immigrants must pass to become a US citizen.

You claim to want informed voters, this is a simple way to weed out those who are extremely ignorant regarding how our government works.
Click to expand...

This is laughable coming for a Trump supporter. You obviously don't even give a **** about having an informed president, but you want to bring back poll tests for voters.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because during a pandemic, when we have social distancing in place, we can't have a hundred million plus Americans showing up to polling places where they all line up together in close proximity. Thus, we need to expanding early voting, mail in and absentee voting.

Why are you guys so scared of more American citizens being part of the electoral process?
Click to expand...

Im scared of the potential abuse by both sides of not verifying someone is eligible to vote.
 
uptower said:
Yeah everyone 'eligible'. And they make it harder to be 'eligible.' Then even when someone is eligible, they move or close polling stations or find ways to strike their names of rolls, while putting up hurdles to ensure they don't get reinstated in time for the next election. Horse****. They do all this because they don't want people to vote. We've heard them admit it so many times, what's the point in trying to lie.
Click to expand...

They don't make it harder to be eligible at all. If you are eligible you are eligible. All we ask is that you prove you're eligible.
 
Moderate Right said:
They don't make it harder to be eligible at all. If you are eligible you are eligible. All we ask is that you prove you're eligible.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's not all they want - they want to make as many people as possible ineligible and they've said so on many occasions, like this.
 
uptower said:
Unfortunately that's not all they want - they want to make as many people as possible ineligible and they've said so on many occasions, like this.
Click to expand...

Stunning how easy it is to vote but never easy enough for people like you who don't really care who votes, just another attack and ignorance on the system we have. Being an American comes with responsibility and that includes voting. Early voting makes it easy to vote but apparently not easy enough for you and others. it is quite ok to cheapen the process as long as you get your way on issues of interest to you.
 
uptower said:
Unfortunately that's not all they want - they want to make as many people as possible ineligible and they've said so on many occasions, like this.
Click to expand...

That's just left wing propaganda. All the right want is to make sure that those voting are eligible. I have to show my ID every time I vote and so should everyone else.
 
Moderate Right said:
They don't make it harder to be eligible at all. If you are eligible you are eligible. All we ask is that you prove you're eligible.
Click to expand...

And every state should be responsible to getting that proof to every person born there.
 
AncientGeek said:
And every state should be responsible to getting that proof to every person born there.
Click to expand...

What? If you want to receive benefits you have to have an ID. If you want to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and some other things you have to show ID. You have to already have an ID for many things. It is YOUR responsibility to get an ID, not the government's. How many of you lefties would actually cry foul if the government forced you to have an ID? I have to go out and get mine. Why can't everyone else? It's just a flat out lie that the poor can't get an ID because if you want benefits, which most poor people get, you have to have an ID.
 
Republicans have known this for years. Not exactly news. It would also be hard for them to win if the electoral college was gone. They have only wont the popular vote once in the last 30 years (Bush - 04).
 
Moderate Right said:
It is a well known fact that Democrats pander for votes by scraping the bottom of the barrel, promising them things that even Democrats don't deliver on.
Click to expand...

wow MR, you are truly special. Please list some of the "well known facts" that you are aware of we'll compare them to "Lock her up", "build that wall and make mexico pay for it" and the timeless "balance the budget". I'm just going to have to assume that "pander" is another word that conservatives don't understand.
 
aociswundumho said:
So in reality it's all government failure. If politicians are selling political favors to the rich, then it's a failure of government, not capitalism.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, no. Don't fall for that Big Business defense. As was proven in 1929 and again in 2007-08, unregulated capitalism will destroy itself. Without even knowing the details, common sense prevails here.

- Unregulated = Crash of 1929 leads to Great Depression.

- Regulated - Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 leads to seventy years of relative stability.

- Unregulated - The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 dismantled Glass-Steagall. By 2006 the unregulated banks were already proving to be irresponsible and led to the Great Recession.

Capitalism is greed. And left unregulated, they will steal, rob, and ruin their own institutions.

aociswundumho said:
Wtf does this dumb crap mean? Who is "allowing" corporations to "pressure" Washington?

The answer of course, is no one. Your beloved "representatives" want to be bought out, because it benefits them to make deals with corporations. Again, this is all government failure, and has nothing to do with private property in the means of production.
Click to expand...

Oh, you wish to blame only one but not the other. If you see this as dumb crap, perhaps you should stick to Dr. Seuss. I'll hold your hand:

1886: In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted constitutional protections to corporations.

1999: The Financial Services Modernization Act dismantled Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which allowed the two separate types of banks to merge again. This is how millions of average Americans saw his retirement and his little investments disappear by 2007.

2000: The Commodity Futures Modernization Act authorized the creation of conglomerates like CitiGroup, which led the way to the banking meltdown of 2007-08.

2010: In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.


* These are the fists that made your Senator a prize for Big Business lobbyists. And legislation comes from Senators, not corporations. Together they worked to upend the economy for the benefit of the few. Would you like the names of the major players involved in giving Big Business license to crap all over the economy and bend you over?

- Robert Rubin: At the new CitiGroup, then Clinton's Treasury secretary, then back to an all powerful CitiGroup.
- Wendy Gramm: Held regulatory positions under Reagan, exempted Enron from regulatory restraints under Clinton, then on the board of Enron.
- Ken Lay: Enron CEO
- Alan Greenspan: head of Federal Reserve
- Lawrence Summers: Clinton's Treasury secretary
- Phil Gramm: Republican Senator
- James Leach: Republican Congressman
- Henry Paulson: Bush's Treasury secretary and former employee of Goldman Sachs
- James A. Johnson: Ran Fanny Mae
- Angelo Mozilo: Chair of Countrywide
- Franklin Delano Raines: Highly compensated Wall Street financial executive working for Fanny Mae
- Bernard Madoff: Chair of NASDAQ

There were plenty more. The Center for Responsive Politics estimated that 71 senators and 188 members of the House received contributions from Enron as it was wrecking southern California for profit. All of this was made possible because corporations were given power over politics. Want to be elected? Good luck avoiding the corporation that just gave your competitor a million dollars. But these are the major players in the scheme to deregulate Big Business and the banks that would see Enron bankrupt and the Great Recession. All received handsome financial rewards along the way for helping lobbyists serve their masters, who turned around and rewarded politicians with campaign donations in a symbiotic relationship that that wrecked the global economy for personal gains. Would you like me to explain the scheme that led to corporations receiving bailouts? And how they coerced the government they paid for to give them exactly what they wanted?

Or is this just "dumb crap?" Look, if you aren't smart enough to understand these things, don't read my posts. Start with a book instead. Or...is Big Business giving you a check too?
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Except thats not what he said. Not sure Guardian should be considered MSM, if you scroll down they have a anti Trump ad asking for money to fight Trump.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe The Guardian (and, yes, I know, only the MAJOR AMERICAN media outlets can be considered to be MSM) because you can always watch Mr. Trump say it for yourself (assuming that the link is still working).
 
aociswundumho said:
How about a basic civics test? Nothing partisan, just some basic questions about how the US government works, like the civics test immigrants must pass to become a US citizen.
Click to expand...

Well, that would most certainly cut down the cost of running elections ("2 of 3 Americans Wouldn’t Pass U.S. Citizenship Test").

aociswundumho said:
You claim to want informed voters, this is a simple way to weed out those who are extremely ignorant regarding how our government works.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Unfortunately, since the "burden of loss" would likely fall most heavily on the political party that DOES NOT even attempt to attract those with any education, you sure aren't going to get such a wonderful idea implemented any time soon.

Mind you, it would also be quite a good way to keep "Those People" in their place - wouldn't it?
 
That's his first good stable genius quote in three years.
 
joko104 said:
The title is a lie. That bill literally allowed people to vote for other people, allowed for people to vote claiming they were voting for someone else - combining this with instant registration to vote. And to do all this on the Internet. So I could vote online thru the entire election non stop every day from the moment early election starting - just saying some name authorized me to vote for him or her - even if no such person even existed.
Click to expand...

Unless you can cite a specific section and produce specific words that back up your astonishing revelation, I shall be forced to conclude that you received your information from a long-term, involuntary, resident of "The Home".
 
uptower said:
Unfortunately that's not all they want - they want to make as many people as possible ineligible and they've said so on many occasions, like this.
Click to expand...

That is not true. A person is an "eligible voter" REGARDLESS of whether or not they have their name on the voter's list. A person is NOT "ineligible" to vote simply because their name is NOT on the voters list.

All that not having your name on the voters list means is that you cannot receive a ballot NOT that you are "ineligible to vote".

Do you see the difference?
 
uptower said:
Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote | US news | The Guardian



I like the way he calls them 'clawbacks' - like he knows the GOP has taken away the right or opportunity to vote and Dems are trying to restore these. How come his people are still making excuses for voter suppression when we keep hearing the real reason from the horse's mouth? Republicans don't want people to vote.
Click to expand...

Tough [censored], because it's going to be implemented.
 
MSgt said:
You are right. It has been proven over and over and over again that the greatest threats to capitalism are capitalists.

(SNIPPED FOR CHARACTER COUNT) see Post #27

These aren't faceless and nameless corporations. These are wealthy billionaires pulling the strings and paying lobbyists to bend Senators and Presidents too their will in order to increase the revenue of upper echelon investors. From here, they manipulate the simple minded to act as a gargoyle against the left and whoever else is just "jealous" of their "hard-earned" money. "Socialism is for the rich, while capitalism is left for the rest of us."

Free market, my ass.
Click to expand...

Thing is, with Republicans at the helm, we won't see New Deal stuff, Bernie stuff. The Republicans aren't the least bit concerned about throwing us some socialist paper towels, or even a bit more than paper towels, but bear in mind how they view socialism.

To them, if they apply a socialist fix, it's a short hop to authoritarian fascism because all they have to do is then rotate the vector to the wealthy after they've tossed us our Bounty Quicker Picker Upper.
Not Bernie, more like Generalissimo Franco, or worse.

Beware Republicans who diddle with socialism..it's like handing blasting caps to a ten year old with antisocial tendencies.
You know he's going to cram them up the cat's butt.
 
Moderate Right said:
What? If you want to receive benefits you have to have an ID. If you want to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and some other things you have to show ID. You have to already have an ID for many things. It is YOUR responsibility to get an ID, not the government's. How many of you lefties would actually cry foul if the government forced you to have an ID? I have to go out and get mine. Why can't everyone else? It's just a flat out lie that the poor can't get an ID because if you want benefits, which most poor people get, you have to have an ID.
Click to expand...

The Social Security number the government forces you to get at birth is your ID for benefits. ;-)
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That is not true. A person is an "eligible voter" REGARDLESS of whether or not they have their name on the voter's list. A person is NOT "ineligible" to vote simply because their name is NOT on the voters list.

All that not having your name on the voters list means is that you cannot receive a ballot NOT that you are "ineligible to vote".

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

I do but then states pull a trick like comparing names who turn up with names on rolls and say, nope not here. This is why those struck off spend months or years in legal wrangling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom