Washington Post Editorial About Trump

Quote -

nd then you make the kinda argument the loons make. No one has said illegals should be voting. In fact, they can’t. Only US citizens can vote and no matter how many illegals come into the country they still can’t vote. To argue otherwise is dishonest. Which is why I know you know better.



This is a flagratn Lie
Fiden opened the borders to every disease ridden illegal/ terrorist from anywhere in teh world - Just to give them the Vote to put DPST marxisim in power in perpetuity.

1b1 - your statement is a bald faced Lie in an effort to cover up the real focus of teh open borders fiasco tht is your beloved fiden crime cabal effort to install marxist tyranny on American citizens


The vote is a Right of Citizens only
You Lie

Yow!

Looks like a pretty cogent and comprehensive discussion to me.

However, you may be mistaken, oeb. 1b1 isn’t in this thread and therefore can’t be lying.

You may want to check with your fellow Trumpists regarding accusations of illegal immigrants voting. Sounds like part of that narrative.

Welcome back.

My, my - have the doors to the asylum been opened???

Quote -

nd then you make the kinda argument the loons make. No one has said illegals should be voting. In fact, they can’t. Only US citizens can vote and no matter how many illegals come into the country they still can’t vote. To argue otherwise is dishonest. Which is why I know you know better.



This is a flagratn Lie
Fiden opened the borders to every disease ridden illegal/ terrorist from anywhere in teh world - Just to give them the Vote to put DPST marxisim in power in perpetuity.

1b1 - your statement is a bald faced Lie in an effort to cover up the real focus of teh open borders fiasco tht is your beloved fiden crime cabal effort to install marxist tyranny on American citizens


The vote is a Right of Citizens only
You Lie Originally Posted by oeb11

Interpreter please. I can’t make hide nor hair of what this is supposed to be. Would someone who speaks Oeb please clarify this nonsense. Or is this some kinda PsyOp, hoping to rob those of us that can make sensible and cohesive sentences and argument go mad.

Tsk tsk calling people a liar is rude. I am sure there are rules against that. I’ll need to check with the mods to make sure though. And was your last post intended to imply something about Mental Health. I’m willing to bet that’s not allowed either. Might need to ask the mods to have a look at that also.

[SNIP]
How does cutting voting hours reduce voter fraud?
How does cutting voting days reduce voter fraud?
How does cutting voting locations reduce voter fraud? Originally Posted by NoirMan

This is a logistics issue, nothing to do with vote fraud.

How does allowing a hunting or gun permit but disallowing student IDs as a form of ID reduce voter fraud?
[SNIP]

eye assume you've heard of fake, counterfeit ids???? student ids doesn't cut the mustard.

we're not living in a segregation era where dirty voting tricks were common.

what is remarkable is the self-serving aggrandized proposition that these people are thoughtfully smart

I wouldn't call his proposal for the Republican party laughable, just unrealistic. You won't find one, much less 7 Republicans in the Senate who have any interest in protecting the right to vote. And the filibuster, it should be eliminated immediately (not that it's going to happen. Originally Posted by billthecat46

for those DPSTs such as teh quoted poster - the 'Right to Vote' is reserved for Citizens of our Country.
the DPSTs seek to impose legal DPST voter Fraud upon America with their HR-1 and 4 bills - and extend the Right to Vote to every illegal in america - and every citizen of teh world - as long as they vote DPST marxist.

It is part of teh institutional Racism of teh DPST party that they claim only white liberal DPSTs can understand and 'liberate' black Peoples who 'cannot think for themselves" .

DPSTs complain about the requirement for a ID for Voters - Yet hypocritically have no problem with Drivers' licences, ID for social security, and many other functions which require identification of an individual.



the quoted poster is another victim of DPST marxist indoctrination, Lies, and Hypocrisy!


Buck fiden
From my cold dead hands!

This is a logistics issue, nothing to do with vote fraud.

eye assume you've heard of fake, counterfeit ids???? student ids doesn't cut the mustard.

we're not living in a segregation era where dirty voting tricks were common. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

It has nothing to with voter fraud so why manipulate the logistic of where and when people can vote. Seems that making voting more convenient should be the aim rather than making it less so.

Are you saying that student IDs issued by UT for instance are being counterfeited and faked so people can vote. Found any shred of proof of that. I’d be impressed. Or are you saying that somehow gun licenses and hunting permits can’t be counterfeited.

I’m not adverse to voter ID. Everyone should have a state or federally issued ID card. And they should be readily obtainable and not require people to travel 40 miles or hour long drives to get. I also would limit acceptable ID to DL, state ID for people without a DL and passports (as a federal analogue. I would not care if it was expired as long as the information and photo was correct. But picking winners and losers by allowing carry permits but not state school IDs reeks of partisanship.

I assume you’re being sarcastic about dirty voting tricks which needs no comment except to say that no proposed or passed voter “integrity” law truly prevents fraud or lacks clearly partisan measures so dirty tricks look to be alive and well.

Without getting to into the weeds, a NY Times editorial from a noncitizen stating why noncitizens should be allowed to vote hardly stands for the proposition that there’s a political movement amongst democrats to allow noncitizens to vote.


Ok, let's look at an actual vote.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...-local-n913591

House Republicans overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution Wednesday opposing undocumented immigrants voting in U.S. elections, including in cities where laws have allowed non-citizens the chance to participate in local elections.
The measure was approved mostly on a party-line vote, 279-72. Forty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in declaring "that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens."

Non-citizens currently can vote in some local elections in 11 states. And what makes you think that number won't rise with the possibility of "forever power"?

That would be 72 elected Democrats who voted against stopping illegals from voting and I guarantee you, the more illegals that come and increase the possibility of sewing up elections forever for the Democrat party, that number will rise.


It’s a very silly argument that you should be smarter than to make.



Ah, been spending time with 1BM1 huh? Since you brought it up. If in virtually every post I made, 1BM1 said "you know better than that", is that calling me, without the use of the word that I probably in hindsight shouldn't have used myself, a liar? I took it as such and got tired of hearing it and being condescending to, I hit back. Now here you are saying the very same thing. You say I "should be smarter than that" what ever that means ( why "should" I be smarter ) but he said, he "knew" I was smarter than that and therefore insinuated that I was lying. I didn't take it well but let me add that I think 1BM1 is one of those people that will put pushing his narrative with some untruths as OK "for the better good". Just an opinion.


There’s no law out there or mechanism to allow for noncitizens to vote since every states requirement is that voters have to be citizens of the US. You know better as do I. I don't think you do.



Again.

Non-citizens currently can vote in some local elections in 11 states.

Where’d I say anything about black and white.


It's in every discussion whether the words are used or not but there are plenty of elected Democrats who aren't afraid to use the words Black and White. They think it works well for them.


I think the premise Tiny put forth was that republicans fear voter fraud and as such instituted measured to cut down fraud. I pointed out several changes that have nothing at all to with stopping fraud. They are intended to reduce voting altogether.


That is you opinion but the facts are that much of what has been put in law, would reduce what fraud, little or not. could happen.


They believe that works to there advantage. Republicans actions have nothing to do with fraud prevention.



Ah, yes and as we all know, Democrats never do anything that works to their advantage like wanting to eliminate the filibuster now that it is in their way but used it for their advantage a record number of times against Trump.


I’ll ask again since you didn’t even ATTEMPT to answer my question



You mean like the questions Tiny and I asked that I have not seen you answer yet? How does cutting voting hours, voting days affect Democrats but not Republicans Black or White? The whole fraud thing is not really my thing. The law and how it is written is my thing and unless the law specifically discriminates by color, then that law applies to all and therefore does not discriminate.


How does cutting voting hours reduce voter fraud?
How does cutting voting days reduce voter fraud?
How does cutting voting locations reduce voter fraud?
How does allowing a hunting or gun permit but disallowing student IDs as a form of ID reduce voter fraud?

None of these measures can explicably be justified as anti-fraud measures.


Sure they can and they were passed by the voters. All one has to say is, when you leave out measures on verifying signatures on mail in ballots, you are inviting fraud. Whether it happened or ever will does not change the fact that it is an anti-fraud measure. You say it isn't necessary but you can not as a factual matter say it wouldn't reduce fraud, that's why it was there in the first place.


If there’s a legitimate reason to institute them out of fear that they fix some massive fraud that’s occurred I’ll entertain the argumentbut I’ve yet to hear it from any legislator or any pundit. They just avoid giving an answer, similarly to the response above.



It's what I prey for.


HF, For someone who writes all these lengthy posts one would expect your ability to read and comprehend to be better.



Thank you 1BM1. I hope you are sitting down because I don't want this to come as a shock to you but your opinion on my writing skills and comprehension don't keep me up at night. You are just one more opinion whose "argument I will entertain" for now, got tired of 1BM1 condescending BS and I can see you are determined to follow his path.


Asking questions that have nothing at all to do with what was being discussed isnt difficult but I have faith you can pull it off if you try.



Oh, so you are under the impression that we are not free to deviate from what you think is relevant to the conversation? Good luck with that. I'll ask any question I want, make any statement I want and you are free to read it, discard it, ignore it. What you may not do is tell me what I can say and when or where I can say it.


Then you go on to argue that Democrats want no voter ID. Democrats have agreed to voter ID but the Republicans don’t want to take yes for an answer. They want the non-germane limitations as well. And You argue for a solution in search of a problem. Whole states have mail in voting as their primary mode of voting without incident. To then claim that “it Could allow fraud” is disengenious. There has been no fraud of any significance that differs from in person voting so, once again it isn’t fraud that is trying to be prevented.



So because something hasn't happened yet ( in your opinion ) therefore it can not happen? You might want to run that buy your logics professor.


I’ve not seen anyone on here state that Trump lost 2016.



Well today is you lucky day. I'll chalk it up to you maybe not being here long enough to read everything I have written on this subject. My stance was that Trump had every right to contest the election by going to the courts. He lost and when the SC shut him down, my statement was "that's it, he lost", period and not a day since have I ever wrote and will not now, say Trump won the election because the SC in essence said he didn't and that's what I accept, right or wrong as far as continuing to say he won. File this for future reference. As much as I try to explain it, it doesn't sink in to some people, you obviously being one. You think everybody that voted for Trump was a die hard Trump supporter willing to accept and believe anything and everything he said? Nope, I am not, never was a Trump supporter and said so often in the primaries. But what I do support is 90% of his policies. I argue the policies, the law and the the Constitution ( and my opinion ) not Trump, it just sounds that way to some people.


I’ve seen Accusations that Russia interfered to Trumps benefit (which the entire US govt agreed with) through a social media campaign. I’ve seen no dispute that the votes were what they were. As for Bush the claim is that Florida, whose governor was Bush’s brother, and the Supreme Court, cut short the recount favoring Bush. But there was no riots and concerted effort to overturn the election. Also, that’s irrelevant to this discussion but I guess you needed to throw it in for no good reason. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Ah, there you go deciding what is relevant and what isn't. You need to tamp down that God complex you have.



Yes, the reason is because you conflated it with the false story that Republicans in going to the floor to dispute confirmations of electors was some how wrong or illegal. I showed you that Democrats did the same thing, something I see you have failed to address and acknowledge as I knew you would. You ran from the topic.


And I did in fact address the two different aftermaths of those floor discussions by both Democrats and Republicans. A small number of Republicans supporters misguided as they may be, decided to riot just like a small number of leftist decided to protest and burn down the cites and businesses that had nothing to do with their grievances. Oops, I'm not suppose to mention that, right?

Did you explain how fewer polling locations, shortened hours and fewer days combat voter fraud? Somehow in both posts I’m getting see an answer to that maybe I missed it. If you answered that feel free to point it out.

You are aware that nonbinding resolutions aren’t legislation. Can’t recall their ever being a need for presidential signature. People vote down marathon resolutions all the time. No one cares and it’s not indicative of what the law is. As I stated, noncitizens can’t vote. State and federal laws don’t allow it currently and no law (actual legislation) is on the books to change that.

Ahhh, Whataboutism, your favorite argument. I’ll just bypass that part as “well they do x and Y” is meaningless. So on to the next subtopic.

Responding to a post and instead of answering or addressing the proposed idea, topic or question and instead asking “what about this or that” is déclassé for lack of a better more fitting term. Completely changing subjects is the ultimate deflection and is not good argumentative style. I’ve no issue with expanding the conversation, but let’s address the topic itself and if you want to discuss some additional topic don’t conflate them or intermingle them.

So nonexistent fraud is a legitimate rationale for passing laws to stop nonexistent fraud. That’s insane. Particularly when the majority of the law has zero to do with fraud prevention. The argument would be valid were the legislation narrowly tailored to its purpose. Instead it’s a Republican wishlist of vote limiting actions. And once again, why does a hunting license make for a valid form of voter id but a state college id not?

Let’s once again make sure we read what’s written and not what you think is implied. Just like I didn’t mention race at all in my prior post, I didn’t mention the idiots Cruz and Hawley and the Republican house members voting against certification. What I did say was people attacked the Capitol and there was a concerted effort (which is ongoing by the way) to overturn the election. Mainly at the state level with the president calling to find votes by pressuring state officials to just make him the winner. And now these sham audits.

1b1 - go back a post and read HF's post.

as usual - you are spewing LSM /DPST lies and propaganda.

Hey 1B1, Oeb says go back a post

Helped ya out there.

XOXO
alternative poster

Thank You 1b1 - all know who posts - in reality.
Thank you for posting more denial and deflection when teh nonsense Lies of teh LSM/DPST party fails - as it always does - as it is just marxist propaganda.

You’re welcome.

SAD!