3 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

So it's just too much to expect someone to prove they are who they say they are?  That's synonymous with disenfranchisement?

I understand your argument. You think I am naïve and I think you are. The history of voting rights in this country, however, weighs heavily on my side of the scale and the identities of those who seek to erect these new barriers and where this takes place adds credence to my view. In addition, in the age of this pandemic, mail-n ballots are not only a legitimate form of voting but a necessity for the health of our citizens.

17 minutes ago, Cliftoma said:

The military has been voting by mail since the Civil War.  I really don't see the issue.  It seems that the opposition just wants to have less turnout since people won't want to stand in line.    

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-do-you-know-voting-mail-works-u-s-military-n1186926

You're comparing apples and oranges

First voting in the military is by absentee ballot. You have to request a ballot from your home state.

Second, since you're on the active duty roster they have a pretty good idea that you're actually alive and therefore eligible to vote. Too many states don't purge their voting rolls of the dead and those who have moved out or state. If they would be required to do that it would be a good start in convincing people that mail in voting is feasible.

41 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

This helmet design is getting destroyed on Twitter

 

The first on field live death would be very on brand for 2020

1 minute ago, justrelax said:

I understand your argument. You think I am naïve and I think you are. The history of voting rights in this country, however, weighs heavily on my side of the scale and the identities of those who seek to erect these new barriers and where this takes place adds credence to my view. In addition, in the age of this pandemic, mail-n ballots are not only a legitimate form of voting but a necessity for the health of our citizens.

As I said, I am fine with mail in ballots.  This country certainly has a history of erecting barriers to the vote, as it also has a history of complex voting fraud.  

To completely ignore any attempts at establishing an identity in the name of disenfranchisement and racism isn't naive.  It's an agenda open to undermining elections.

I understand that some right wingers do have a dog in this fight so that they can suppress some liberal inner city votes.  If you want to empower the underprivileged, create a government program to get them easy access to proper ID.  This isn't 1930.  Eliminating security in an election isn't the solution if a group of people can't prove their identity.  That's a bass ackwards way of addressing the problem.  

In Canada, everyone has the right to vote by mail. There is no widespread voter fraud and the majority of people still vote in person. Voting by mail should not be considered a big deal. 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The first on field live death would be very on brand for 2020

Sure would reduce facemask penalties

14 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

As I said, I am fine with mail in ballots.  This country certainly has a history of erecting barriers to the vote, as it also has a history of complex voting fraud.  

To completely ignore any attempts at establishing an identity in the name of disenfranchisement and racism isn't naive.  It's an agenda open to undermining elections.

I understand that some right wingers do have a dog in this fight so that they can suppress some liberal inner city votes.  If you want to empower the underprivileged, create a government program to get them easy access to proper ID.  This isn't 1930.  Eliminating security in an election isn't the solution if a group of people can't prove their identity.  That's a bass ackwards way of addressing the problem.  

This seems like a good idea. However, in many of the state where this voter suppression is going on, they are making it more difficult to obtain these, rather than less. Their purpose is clear and it is also clear at whom this is being directed.

4 minutes ago, justrelax said:

This seems like a good idea. However, in many of the state where this voter suppression is going on, they are making it more difficult to obtain these, rather than less. Their purpose is clear and it is also clear at whom this is being directed.

In Canada, we're now on track to begin testing online voting in federal elections. The majority of Canadians support this, but are rightfully concerned about fraud. So in the next 5 years, we're going to be likely testing online voting in some select areas. If that goes well, it can be expanded.

It's a digital world, and distance activities in all walks of life will only increase.

 

13 hours ago, Utebird said:

Ever heard of gerrymandering?

Which party has recently been exposed as illegally gerrymandering voting districts in their favor. Stats with a G ends with a P.

Who is being suppressed. Those who the GOP feel wont vote for them.

Both parties gerrymander. Now it reached an extreme in PA last time when the Republicans drew a district that at one narrow point went through a business to achieve there goals. I am proud our state Supreme Court found such gerrymandering in violation of our state Constitution. 

2 hours ago, BigEFly said:

My father-in-law no longer has a driver license and couldn’t stand in line to get a state issued photo ID now.  Disenfranchising him and people like him would be bad for conservatives and the Republican Party.  I have never had to show my ID to vote.  

This is the biggest group of people that would be disenfranchised by photo ID requirements.  

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

laws dont stop people from doing it. at least capture the tax revenue from it

 

yup

1 hour ago, Desertbirds said:

No! It's a public health catastrophe.

 

Agreed. And I didn't see a media blow-up calling it that this weekend. But the world was going to end when people were partying in the Ozarks on Memorial Day less than two weeks earlier. 

15 hours ago, Utebird said:

In a true democratic socialist system the people run the system.

The problems dont arise from the system it self they arise from the corrupt people subverting others within the system for their own profit.

Capitalism isnt inherently bad or good what makes it so is the people running it the problem with capitalism at its base is it automatically creates competition which creates winners and losers which creates ruling class and working class.

In a socialist society everyone is the working class and in theory an equal part.

Studies from current economies show that the countries that use mixed economies strong social programs coinciding with free markets have over all higher happiness and freedom scores, healthier environments, and strong economies.

When people think of socialism they often think of nordic countries like sweden but fail to consider that while sweden has strong social principles they also have free market trade. If im not mistaken sweden is often at the top of worldwide happiness rankings every year.

The US ranks bottom half on a regular basis😞

 

That’s not socialism v capitalism that is driving the unhappiness, it is poverty. There are no truly socialist countries and none where all workers are equal. They tried that in Cambodia. The results were horrific. Don’t think they had a high happiness score. Socialism is not strong social policies. Sounds like you are supporting the latter.  We have shown with Medicare and Social Security those can work. I have no issue with that but people in this country are fixated on taxes so it would be a cultural change. That takes time.

28 minutes ago, justrelax said:

This seems like a good idea. However, in many of the state where this voter suppression is going on, they are making it more difficult to obtain these, rather than less. Their purpose is clear and it is also clear at whom this is being directed.

And making it much more difficult to have access to polling centers where they can vote.  

15 hours ago, Utebird said:

Hmmm learn something new every day. 

How and why did that come about?

Prohibition. That is how we came out of it and can’t seem to get out of it.  

44 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

You're comparing apples and oranges

First voting in the military is by absentee ballot. You have to request a ballot from your home state.

Second, since you're on the active duty roster they have a pretty good idea that you're actually alive and therefore eligible to vote. Too many states don't purge their voting rolls of the dead and those who have moved out or state. If they would be required to do that it would be a good start in convincing people that mail in voting is feasible.

It is feasible.  Voting by mail and voting in person happens without purging of voting rolls.  The reality is that only about 60% of people vote. I think there's always a question of ballot harvesting.  In the long run, I am not sure how different that is then churches taking vans of people to the polls.  

2 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

It is feasible.  Voting by mail and voting in person happens without purging of voting rolls.  The reality is that only about 60% of people vote. I think there's always a question of ballot harvesting.  In the long run, I am not sure how different that is then churches taking vans of people to the polls.  

Churches taking people to polling places is no different than unions or community organizer organizations taking people to polling places.

I don't want my vote nullified by someone voting that isn't eligible to do

I'm sure you feel the same.

2 hours ago, greend said:

Yes, they do. I have no problem with grass , but don't start pushing heavier drugs on us. 

I think the argument is that legalization allows for regulation.  There is more control and less problems.  

Just now, Asg 15 said:

Churches taking people to polling places is no different than unions or community organizer organizations taking people to polling places.

I don't want my vote nullified by someone voting that isn't eligible to do

I'm sure you feel the same.

I think hurdles that prevent people from voting, especially in the South, have historically been used as a tool for repression.  We don't need them.  People aren't voting illegally.  

12 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

And who runs that progressive state? Most liberals don't. Just like most Patriots fans don't have a problem with the crooked crap Bill does as long as they keep winning.

I'm not a liberal, first of all, it depends on the subject matter on whether I am either side or in the middle. I am an Independant/We need new parties person. They only send out ballots to people registered to vote, with return envelopes with codes to ensure that only 1 of each person comes through. There's a bunch of safeguards. I'm not saying people should be able to write someone's name on a piece of paper and send it in. If you do mail in ballots responsibly with current technologies, it is viable.

I have no problem with mail in voting in principle. There has to be a way though to make the people filling out the ballot are the ones who the ballot was actually mailed to.

1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

I think hurdles that prevent people from voting, especially in the South, have historically been used as a tool for repression.  We don't need them.  People aren't voting illegally.  

People aren't voting illegally.  

How do you know that? I'm not saying it's one side or the other. But if no one is looking how do you know?

2 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Churches taking people to polling places is no different than unions or community organizer organizations taking people to polling places.

I don't want my vote nullified by someone voting that isn't eligible to do

I'm sure you feel the same.

In NC, it's the black churches that are taking the black voters to the polls in NC.  

5 hours ago, greend said:

Hey and let's go ahead and make murder legal as well. Costs a lot to prosecute and house murderers too. I mean hard drugs and youths of all colors dying because of drugs pfffft who needs em anyways.

There are models and results in countries that have tried various methods of decriminalization. Portugal is a great example:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/

Pot should never have been criminalized. It was driven more by economics than the drug, hemp v cotton.  Largest hemp farmer in America in 1776, George Washington. The founders may have been stoned as well as drunk (water wasn’t safe to drink).

 

3 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

People aren't voting illegally.  

How do you know that? I'm not saying it's one side or the other. But if no one is looking how do you know?

Well people are looking.  There are people at the polling places to verify voter information.  There have been I think less than 100 cases where people have been indicted for some sort of voter fraud vs. the more 150 million people voting.  https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf It's just not an issue. 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

adulting is hard. let people make their choices and accept their consequences. 

Sorry but kidding is harder

2 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Nope.  Not anywhere it's been done.  We can look at Portugal as an example....

 

One of the most keenly disputed outcomes of Portugal’s reforms is their impact on levels of drug use. Conflicting accounts of how rates of use changed after 2001 are usually due to different data sets, age groups, or indicators of changing drug use patterns being used. But a more complete picture of the situation post-decriminalisation reveals:

Levels of drug use are below the European average
 

Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24,6 the population most at risk of initiating drug
 

Lifetime drug use among the general population has increased slightly,8 in line with trends in comparable nearby countries.9 However, lifetime use is widely considered to be the least accurate measure of a country’s current drug use situation10 11
 

Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population – which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends12 – have decreased13
 

Between 2000 and 2005 (the most recent years for which data are available) rates of problematic drug use and injecting drug use decreased14
 

Drug use among adolescents decreased for several years following decriminalisation, but has since risen to around 2003 levels15
 

Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased16

Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs.17 18 19 

There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.

 

This basically states that drug use amounts are based off of social trends NOT laws.  

 

https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

 

 

Sorry but I don't believe it