What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

HR1-For the People Act (1 Viewer)

Yes I agree with it. Several states are attempting to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. They need to be overridden, just as they were with the voting rights act. Voter fraud is an illusion, a non issue. There has never, in modern times, been a significant enough amount of voter fraud to affect the result of any election. It doesn’t exist. 
The voter fraud excuse is being used because Republicans are terrified by changing demographic trends that result in growing amounts of minority voting. So they’re doing everything they can to slow it down or stop it. And it’s just wrong. 

 
timschochet said:
Yes I agree with it. Several states are attempting to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. They need to be overridden, just as they were with the voting rights act. Voter fraud is an illusion, a non issue. There has never, in modern times, been a significant enough amount of voter fraud to affect the result of any election. It doesn’t exist. 
The voter fraud excuse is being used because Republicans are terrified by changing demographic trends that result in growing amounts of minority voting. So they’re doing everything they can to slow it down or stop it. And it’s just wrong. 
Click to expand...
Shadrap specifically mentioned the first two. Third party handler fraud just happened in a recent election in NC. 

Nothing should be done to make that easier. 

So for the purposes of the OP and the thread, you dont get to pretend its just a fabricated myth by the right.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Shadrap specifically mentioned the first two. Third party handler fraud just happened in a recent election in NC. 

Nothing should be done to make that easier. 

So for the purposes of the OP and the thread, you dont get to pretend its just a fabricated myth by the right.
Click to expand...
It’s a fabricated myth by the right. No pretending necessary. 

 
knowledge dropper said:
I’ve never heard a sane argument against voters having to show ID. 
Click to expand...
I felt the same until I dug into it a bit. There are about 3m voters currently that have no form of identification, and for many, obtaining one can be incredibly difficult (harder than I had originally thought).  Some have no birth certificate, discrepancies between their SS card and other docs, don’t live close to a place to obtain one, etc. 

 
I'm going to skip the arguments that everyone already understands -- that adding "security" to go from 99.99% safe to 100% safe imposes the unacceptable cost of disenfranchising many people.

Strictly from a partisan point of view, why would Democrats agree to tilt the field even further towards Republicans?  Why would they buy into a system where 54% of the vote (or more) doesn't win?  It's already 52/53%, why should anyone think they'd accept that -- let alone make the hill steeper?

 
If those two things asserted are true, then I'm vehemently against it. We did have an election likely determined by voter fraud. Actually we've had two. 1960 and 2000. Being mandated to prove one's own citizenship and the assurance of "one man, one vote" should be sacrosanct and attempts should be made to enshrine both of those tenets into law.

That said, Republicans complaining about HR-1 are busy setting up fake ballot boxes in Orange County in Democratic areas, making sure people can barely reach a polling station, and are sticklers for what constitutes proper identification.

 
timschochet said:
It’s a fabricated myth by the right. No pretending necessary. 
Click to expand...
How can you say this? It just happened in 2018 in NC. Third party handling fraud actually happened. 

Which is what the second point in the article talks about which is one of the points shadrap singled out.

You are being dishonest here.

 
4 in 5 Americans support voter ID laws

Link

Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting

Favor: 80%

Oppose: 19%

Last year, Harvard Business School conducted a study analyzing voter turnout in the United States over an eight-year period. The researchers look at how voter ID laws affect the ability of minority Americans to turn out at the polls and cast their votes.

Link

The study revealed that “Strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation.”

Researchers also found that voter ID laws “do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites.” 

 
I was curious who the author of this piece was. He had these two gems in succesion :lmao:

DEC 19 Attorney General William Barr steps down with outstanding record of accomplishments. Attorney General William Barr will leave office Wednesday the same way he came in — as a class act. He carried out his role as the consummate professional who followed the law, administered justice, and forged ahead — despite relentlessly unfair and unjustified criticism leveled at him.

JAN 9 Can Biden AG nominee Merrick Garland run Justice Department without political bias? With President-elect Joe Biden’s choice of Judge Merrick Garland as his new attorney general this week, the question arises: Will Garland carry out his responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner, or will he return the Justice Department to the days of the Obama-Biden administration

 
the moops said:
I was curious who the author of this piece was. He had these two gems in succesion :lmao:

DEC 19 Attorney General William Barr steps down with outstanding record of accomplishments. Attorney General William Barr will leave office Wednesday the same way he came in — as a class act. He carried out his role as the consummate professional who followed the law, administered justice, and forged ahead — despite relentlessly unfair and unjustified criticism leveled at him.

JAN 9 Can Biden AG nominee Merrick Garland run Justice Department without political bias? With President-elect Joe Biden’s choice of Judge Merrick Garland as his new attorney general this week, the question arises: Will Garland carry out his responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner, or will he return the Justice Department to the days of the Obama-Biden administration
Click to expand...
It's refreshing to get an unbiased, clinical point of view.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia over an opinion essay to get the basics. (And also the details.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act
Click to expand...
Are you saying the first two points are incorrect? 

I dont believe they are. The second one isnt false since the text of the bill itself says that any person can turn in an absentee ballot for somebody else and that there cant be limits set on the quantity. 

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I'm going to skip the arguments that everyone already understands -- that adding "security" to go from 99.99% safe to 100% safe imposes the unacceptable cost of disenfranchising many people.

Strictly from a partisan point of view, why would Democrats agree to tilt the field even further towards Republicans?  Why would they buy into a system where 54% of the vote (or more) doesn't win?  It's already 52/53%, why should anyone think they'd accept that -- let alone make the hill steeper?
Click to expand...
If every "legal"vote counts like we are led to believe, then we do it.  

 
Even as a left leaner, I'm not against voter ID if not done in an overly cumbersome manner.

Want to get rid of early and mail in voting? Would rather keep them but sure.....in their place lets make Election day a national holiday with most businesses mandated to be closed. Then REQUIRE states and localities to having one polling station per 5000 residents...IN THE SAME AREA as those residents. Finally expand the polls open hours to no less then 5 AM till 11 PM.

 
parasaurolophus said:
How can you say this? It just happened in 2018 in NC. Third party handling fraud actually happened. 

Which is what the second point in the article talks about which is one of the points shadrap singled out.

You are being dishonest here.
Click to expand...
I think you’re the one being dishonest, no offense. The situation in North Carolina, in which Republicans attempted election fraud, had nothing to do with voter ID or with any of the particulars of this current bill. In addition, they failed. 

 
renesauz said:
Even as a left leaner, I'm not against voter ID if not done in an overly cumbersome manner.

Want to get rid of early and mail in voting? Would rather keep them but sure.....in their place lets make Election day a national holiday with most businesses mandated to be closed. Then REQUIRE states and localities to having one polling station per 5000 residents...IN THE SAME AREA as those residents. Finally expand the polls open hours to no less then 5 AM till 11 PM.
Click to expand...
Conservatives are never going to agree to this because their whole purpose is to have less people voting, not more. 

 
timschochet said:
Conservatives are never going to agree to this because their whole purpose is to have less people voting, not more. 
Click to expand...
But that's kind of my point. There are some legit arguments to be made that security could be better in some places (even if you and I believe there's no significant fraud). But access to voting is OUR major point, and there's more then one way to get there. I'd be willing to budge on their complaints if they're willing to budge on (ours)

 
renesauz said:
But that's kind of my point. There are some legit arguments to be made that security could be better in some places (even if you and I believe there's no significant fraud). But access to voting is OUR major point, and there's more then one way to get there. I'd be willing to budge on their complaints if they're willing to budge on (ours)
Click to expand...
Why not add 10x the cops in every city?  No crime is the only acceptable goal.

And you call those food standards?  Psh.  We need at least a million more inspectors at FDA to make sure every package that goes out is safe.

Also, it pains me to say it, and I'm sorry to be the one to bring up this obvious point, but we're just going to have to stop driving altogether.  The only acceptable speeding is zero speeding.

Etc. etc. etc.

It has nothing to do with security.  Elections are secure.  It's a voter suppression scheme, pure and simple.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People bring up voter ID, like it's the beginning and end of the discussion.

Cool with me if people have to produce ID. Seems fair.

Care to defend the other dozens of restrictions they are putting on voting?

One can argue for voter ID. It gets harder when you have to defend restricting early voting, picking random days when voting isn't allowed, etc.

After the 2010 election, state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.

Overall, 25 states have put in place new restrictions since then — 15 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (including six states with strict photo ID requirements), 12 have laws making it harder for citizens to register (and stay registered), ten made it more difficult to vote early or absentee, and three took action to make it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-voting-restrictions-america

 
timschochet said:
I think you’re the one being dishonest, no offense. The situation in North Carolina, in which Republicans attempted election fraud, had nothing to do with voter ID or with any of the particulars of this current bill. In addition, they failed. 
Click to expand...
Are you intentionally ignoring that I pointed out twice one of the provisions we are discussing is about third party handling of votes?

 
I don’t know, that completely objective Foxnews opinion piece was very compelling.  tough call.

 
-fish- said:
All for it.  When your arguments are things like “it infringes on individuals’ right to not register to vote” you’re on the wrong side.  Every citizen over 18 should be automatically registered to vote.
Click to expand...
And have an state issued ID card at the minimum.  Can be issued at the DMV, post office, county courthouse/records building, or SS office.   

 
timschochet said:
I think you’re the one being dishonest, no offense. The situation in North Carolina, in which Republicans attempted election fraud, had nothing to do with voter ID or with any of the particulars of this current bill. In addition, they failed. 
Click to expand...
The bold is false. 

Third party ballot collecting in NC is illegal. That is how they were able to catch him.

Hey these vote totals aren't making a lot of sense. Hey we got complaints of a third party illegally collecting ballots. Hmmmm...

If ballot harvesting was legal(this bill would make it legal) they probably would have gotten away with it.

 
parasaurolophus said:
The bold is false. 

Third party ballot collecting in NC is illegal. That is how they were able to catch him.

Hey these vote totals aren't making a lot of sense. Hey we got complaints of a third party illegally collecting ballots. Hmmmm...

If ballot harvesting was legal(this bill would make it legal) they probably would have gotten away with it.
Click to expand...
I’ll look into that aspect more. 
But this bill is extremely important as a means to override what states are trying to do. If there are some flaws that come with it I’m OK with them so long as we get everybody voting. 

 
Probably going to come off as naive, but I honestly thought more people voting, not fewer, was an actual bi-partisan effort. All the “get out the vote” campaigns, the commercials, etc., seemed to be sponsored by both parties (at least I thought so). It’s only in the last year or so that I realized voter suppression was an actual strategy and I have to admit that was both surprising and disappointing to learn. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Probably going to come off as naive, but I honestly thought more people voting, not fewer, was an actual bi-partisan effort. All the “get out the vote” campaigns, the commercials, etc., seemed to be sponsored by both parties (at least I thought so). It’s only in the last year or so that I realized voter suppression was an actual strategy and I have to admit that was both surprising and disappointing to learn. 
Click to expand...
In my view there's a difference between "We need to get out as many of our people to vote as possible" and "we need to get out as many people to vote as possible".  The words being spoken by both "sides" here are the later.  That's not true of the actions via legislation.  

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Probably going to come off as naive, but I honestly thought more people voting, not fewer, was an actual bi-partisan effort. All the “get out the vote” campaigns, the commercials, etc., seemed to be sponsored by both parties (at least I thought so). It’s only in the last year or so that I realized voter suppression was an actual strategy and I have to admit that was both surprising and disappointing to learn. 
Click to expand...
What state do you live in?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Probably going to come off as naive, but I honestly thought more people voting, not fewer, was an actual bi-partisan effort. All the “get out the vote” campaigns, the commercials, etc., seemed to be sponsored by both parties (at least I thought so). It’s only in the last year or so that I realized voter suppression was an actual strategy and I have to admit that was both surprising and disappointing to learn. 
Click to expand...
I believe it's also a sign of desperation.

When you think more people agree with you, get out the vote, woo woo! Right? 

When your strategy to win elections is to make it as hard as possible for people to vote, especially  certain people, it says quite a bit. 

It's very very sad. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider said:
Grace Under Pressure said:
Probably going to come off as naive, but I honestly thought more people voting, not fewer, was an actual bi-partisan effort. All the “get out the vote” campaigns, the commercials, etc., seemed to be sponsored by both parties (at least I thought so). It’s only in the last year or so that I realized voter suppression was an actual strategy and I have to admit that was both surprising and disappointing to learn. 
Click to expand...
I believe it's also a sign of desperation.

When you think more people agree with you, get out the vote, woo woo! Right? 

When your strategy to win elections is to make it as hard as possible for people to vote, especially  certain people, it says quite a bit. 

It's very very sad. 
Click to expand...
This is not a new phenomenon in American history.  Poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. were used for decades to depress voting from certain populations.  

 
so I can walk into a polling place, sign a form saying I'm John Smith, no ID required, fill out a ballot, go to another polling place say I'm Gerald Smith, fill out another ballot.  Go to a third polling place as James Smith & repeat.  Sorry, but this doesn't seem right.

 
shadrap said:
so I can walk into a polling place, sign a form saying I'm John Smith, no ID required, fill out a ballot, go to another polling place say I'm Gerald Smith, fill out another ballot.  Go to a third polling place as James Smith & repeat.  Sorry, but this doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
If you got caught you could go to jail.  That seems like a pretty good disincentive.

 
shadrap said:
odds of getting caught seems miniscule.  Jail?  yea, right.
Click to expand...
Agree here....the odds of getting caught are pretty low.  The best part is, the odds of your three fraudulent votes making even the least bit of difference are far less.  We already know that 3-4% of the votes in any given election are rejected for various reasons including fraud, but somehow this boogie man lives on.  Doesn't make much sense to me.  

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don’t think the odds are low of being caught impersonating a voter, I actually think they’re pretty high.  Lots or ways to get busted.
Click to expand...
Maybe?  I really don't know.  I've lived places where I just gave them an electric bill and voted.  No cameras in the place, so I have no idea how they'd have tracked me down.  :shrug:  

 
The Commish said:
Maybe?  I really don't know.  I've lived places where I just gave them an electric bill and voted.  No cameras in the place, so I have no idea how they'd have tracked me down.  :shrug:  
Click to expand...
If anybody there either knows who you are or who the person you’re pretending to be is, they might not need to track you down.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just based on the name I don’t trust it.  Just like the Patriot act had nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with surveillance. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stealthycat
Arkansas SAFE act "The nation's first trial over a state's ban on gender-confirming care for children "
3 4 5
Replies
236
Views
5K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
The General
Covid Scammers
Replies
13
Views
529
KarmaPolice
KarmaPolice
ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
993
ren hoek
ren hoek

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top