Rick Perry?

I have an idea. Have everyone vote in person the week of an election. Show ID.

For those that want to absentee vote, complete the absentee ballot and include a copy of your ID with a finger print.

Count all ballots beginning on the day of election and outlaw the MSM providing polls and opinion on who will win.

Then there will be free and fair elections.
 
theiioftx said:
I have an idea. Have everyone vote in person the week of an election. Show ID.

For those that want to absentee vote, complete the absentee ballot and include a copy of your ID with a finger print.

Count all ballots beginning on the day of election and outlaw the MSM providing polls and opinion on who will win.

Then there will be free and fair elections.
Click to expand...
Better yet - show on webpage if you voted or didn’t vote , so you can confirm.
 
mchammer said:
Better yet - show on webpage if you voted or didn’t vote , so you can confirm.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind any of those ideas. Not sure how we would get copies of ID’s from elderly, disabled, dead, etc. [I threw one in there for you guys.]. Fingerprints would be interesting.
 
Bubba,

Any flea market in the Metroplex or Houston SMSA can get you an ID in a matter of minutes. If you're black, you can get one that says you're George Wallace. If you're David Duke, they can get your Malcolm Ten ID in less than five minutes, complete with your photo.

If you want a real one, go to any DPS office, sit in line for 72 hours with all the illegals, and the State of Texas will give you an O-fishal government ID with photo for a nominal fee.
 
OUBubba said:
I don't really know. But, one way to limit unnecessary absentee voting is to enhance early access. Weekends, weekdays, weeknights, etc. Remove barriers to vote. If you want more people to vote that would be a priority.

The States Where Efforts To Restrict Voting Are Escalating
Click to expand...

A few things on this. First, none of what you posted is "disenfranchisement" as you characterize it. Second, more people voting just for the sake of them voting isn't my goal. I'm open about that. There's nothing inherently good about a lot of people voting. North Korea has very high voting turnout, and few would consider them to be a healthy democracy. It's the openness of the system and the quality (not quantity) of voters that tells how healthy the system is.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
A few things on this. First, none of what you posted is "disenfranchisement" as you characterize it. Second, more people voting just for the sake of them voting isn't my goal. I'm open about that. There's nothing inherently good about a lot of people voting. North Korea has very high voting turnout, and few would consider they to be a healthy democracy. It's the openness of the system and the quality (not quantity) of voters that tells how healthy the system is.
Click to expand...
If actions are being taken to affect a certain population that is disenfranchisement. If you think that’s not taking place then you might as well get a red ht and move on.
 
OUBubba said:
If actions are being taken to affect a certain population that is disenfranchisement. If you think that’s not taking place then you might as well get a red ht and move on.
Click to expand...

It depends on the specifics. Obviously a full prohibition on voting is disenfranchisement. For example, felons are sometimes disenfranchised. My seven year old is disenfranchised. He can't vote no matter what he does. However, I'm not going to use the same term to describe a photo ID requirement (especially when they're free). It simply isn't honest.

I'm generally a fan of early voting to a point (a week or two), but is it disenfranchisement if a state doesn't have it? No. A state needs to make voting reasonably available, but it doesn't have to idiot-proof the process to accommodate every situation a Democratic activist can come up with. Just because you can find a guy who can't afford a pen doesn't mean we can't require a signature on his registration. Just because you can find a guy who has to work on election day doesn't mean there's a constitutional right to vote early or on weekends. Maybe a state should choose those options, but it's not an injustice or a breach of his rights if they don't. It's not "disenfranchisement."
 
Mr. Deez said:
It depends on the specifics. Obviously a full prohibition on voting is disenfranchisement. For example, felons are sometimes disenfranchised. My seven year old is disenfranchised. He can't vote no matter what he does. However, I'm not going to use the same term to describe a photo ID requirement (especially when they're free). It simply isn't honest.

I'm generally a fan of early voting to a point (a week or two), but is it disenfranchisement if a state doesn't have it? No. A state needs to make voting reasonably available, but it doesn't have to idiot-proof the process to accommodate every situation a Democratic activist can come up with. Just because you can find a guy who can't afford a pen doesn't mean we can't require a signature on his registration. Just because you can find a guy who has to work on election day doesn't mean there's a constitutional right to vote early or on weekends. Maybe a state should choose those options, but it's not an injustice or a breach of his rights if they don't. It's not "disenfranchisement."
Click to expand...
Deezer, when the majority of Hispanics start voting republican, you will see this issue disappear since Dems think (wrongly) they are the largest group in terms of total votes being disenfranchised.
 
Dems mistakenly believe higher turnout helps them. 2020 was the highest turnout by far for Texas and GOP still won by 10% in the senate race. Why do dems believe there are hidden votes for them at the bottom of the proverbial barrel? Logic would say the further down the voter list you go, the more apathetic the voters will be, and party preference likely to be 50/50 (coin toss). Then again dems aren’t known to understand human motivation.
 
theiioftx said:
My issue with early voting is the polls declaring who is winning before some people even vote.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't release voting numbers until all polls (including election day) are closed. And I'd keep the early voting period reasonable - 1 or 2 weeks.
 
Mr. Deez said:
A state needs to make voting reasonably available, but it doesn't have to idiot-proof the process to accommodate every situation a Democratic activist can come up with.
Click to expand...

If you idiot proof the process, then you will have idiots determining the fate of your government. Just logically that has to be true, no?
 
mchammer said:
Deezer, when the majority of Hispanics start voting republican, you will see this issue disappear since Dems think (wrongly) they are the largest group in terms of total votes being disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

Those on the Right need to appeal Hispanics on traditional/family values, freedom, abortion, and seeing each other as true Americans. I think that would be enough for most. No need to pander in identity Marxism. Pay for some add time on Univision and Galavision with that message. Make sure state and local laws treat them fairly. I think there would be a big switch.
 
Monahorns said:
If you idiot proof the process, then you will have idiots determining the fate of your government. Just logically that has to be true, no?
Click to expand...
We have Omar, Sheila Jackson Lee, the bartenderette, Maxine Waters and countless others as strong evidence of what you get when you allow idiots to vote in large numbers.
 
Monahorns said:
Those on the Right need to appeal Hispanics on traditional/family values, freedom, abortion, and seeing each other as true Americans. I think that would be enough for most. No need to pander in identity Marxism. Pay for some add time on Univision and Galavision with that message. Make sure state and local laws treat them fairly. I think there would be a big switch.
Click to expand...
The Dem's need to make a business decision on abortion. That's the issue that lost them the 2016 presidential election. The right has wedge issued that thing expertly since before I was of pro-creating age.
 
OUBubba said:
The Dem's need to make a business decision on abortion. That's the issue that lost them the 2016 presidential election. The right has wedge issued that thing expertly since before I was of pro-creating age.
Click to expand...
Make it a state issue and the issue disappears on the federal level. As an example, the right to life movement has their big protest walk every January in DC. If Roe is abolished, as I was talking to someone who is going, why have the parade any more in DC? Also, the parade commemorates Roe. If it all goes away, why have a parade at all? Switch to protests at the state capitals at least. Even then, the decisions at the state level will be determined by individual representatives, so protest at the local level.

I don’t think people realize the future if Roe is abolished.
 
mchammer said:
Make it a state issue and the issue disappears on the federal level. As an example, the right to life movement has their big protest walk every January in DC. If Roe is abolished, as I was talking to someone who is going, why have the parade any more in DC? Also, the parade commemorates Roe. If it all goes away, why have a parade at all? Switch to protests at the state capitals at least. Even then, the decisions at the state level will be determined by individual representatives, so protest at the local level.

I don’t think people realize the future if Roe is abolished.
Click to expand...
Yes. And, it's a horrible PR topic even if you're pro-Roe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top