Senate Rejects New Money For Election Security (apnews.com)

The Republican-controlled Senate has defeated a push by Democrats to set aside an additional $250 million for states to upgrade their voting systems to protect against hacking and other cyberattacks. From a report: An amendment offered by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy received 50 yes votes, 10 short of the 60 needed for approval. Leahy said securing U.S. elections and "safeguarding our democracy" is not a partisan issue. He said the Senate "must send a clear message to Russia and other foreign adversaries that tampering in our elections will not be tolerated. The president will not act. This duty has fallen to us." A similar effort was also rejected in the House.

Comments

States can get serious

[iggymanz]

This problem can be addressed at the state level with it being major talking point at federal level for the elections. Great opportunity to find where lawmakers stand, and yes some Democrats are dirtbags on the issue too, despite what comes out of their mouths.

Re:States can get serious

[virtualXTC]

It's a "National Election" if just a few stated decide not to implement security it affects the integrity for everyone. So no this isn't something States should deal with.

Re:States can get serious

[I kan Spl]

"All elections are local"

The distributed nature of our elections means we can get the best security if each state implements different security measures, so an attacker would need to figure out the weaknesses of 50 of them, as opposed to a single monolithic system.

The way our voting system works, if one state was "hacked" then the worst that would come of it would be the electoral votes from that one state would be potentially affected. This could swing an election, in theory, if a swing state was "hacked".

That being said, "hacking" the election in a non-swing state like North Dakota or California wouldn't do much. Nobody would believe it if North Dakota suddenly went 90%+ Democrat, nor would they believe it if California went 90%+ Republican.

Re:States can get serious

[DarkOx]

No it does not affect the integrity. The people do not elect the president states do! if a state wants to risk their franchise that is that states business.

Its not even clear, states have to put the presidential election on a ballot. They could conceivably choose a candidate in their legislatures. In fact that might be a better system

Re:States can get serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya ya ya "they're both the same!" but they're not so stop with that horseshit please. Republicans have REPEATEDLY blocked upgrading election security. The party that can't seem to throw enough money at corporations is now suddenly very much against giving new money away.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they personally benefited from the Russian hacking and election interference.

Re:States can get serious

[AutodidactLabrat]

False
Since hacking seems to be party dependent, it follows that those states in favor of the pro-foreign-intervention party will deliberately ignore hacking attacks, counting on a favorable result to justify minority rule.

Re:States can get serious

[quantaman]

This problem can be addressed at the state level with it being major talking point at federal level for the elections. Great opportunity to find where lawmakers stand, and yes some Democrats are dirtbags on the issue too, despite what comes out of their mouths.

The states are hardly the ones to trust with ensuring fair elections.

Re:States can get serious

[bluefoxlucid]

That's not how election security works.

Security begins and ends at the ballot box. The voting machine has to be shown untampered; it has to be observed untampered throughout the day; and the counts have to be demonstrated with no chance of tampering before being shipped off to SBE. SBE publishes ballots and you regenerate the counts to show that they all come up with the right tally, thus integrity is maintained.

You can also attack the ballots from other directions. Voting methods which allow manipulation--such as plurality--are wide-open to such attacks. Clones can turn a narrow race into a sure victory (have a friend run against you, mimicking the campaign of your opponent). The election generally revolves around tipping a small amount of the swing vote and exciting the party voting base, so propaganda at the right time can directly select any candidate.

Resistance to attack requires strong procedural election security and a voting rule that resists manipulation (such as certain Condorcet methods and STV). An election system monoculture benefits from greater scrutiny and adherence to procedure; the most important procedure is the minimization of attack surface and the strict maintenance of integrity. Varied systems create more opportunities to discover weaknesses--which doesn't matter if you've got no attack surface, but then you're relying on a property which (again) suggests varied systems aren't a defense but rather a liability.

Re:States can get serious

[bluefoxlucid]

That's because election security at the polls relies on locality to the community, loud announcement, and non-reuse of voter ID. We essentially presume that fewer people can repeatedly show up at the same polling place and claim to be someone else without anyone noticing it's the same person or, alternately, wander from polling place to polling place casting other people's votes without the real voter appearing or anyone recognizing them as not that person than there are voters who would be unable to produce a State ID for various reasons.

It's harder to defraud an election than one might think.

Re:States can get serious

[ausekilis]

"Hey, if it helps me win, I'm okay with it" - All Senators that opposed the issue.

Honestly though, lots of money has been dumped into making ballots secure, and they have never really been that well protected from hacking/interference. A $250 mil earmark may be a waste of money compared to having some IV&V with blackhats prior to making purchases of ballot systems.

Re:States can get serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
Recent american election are close enough that flipping one or two states would be enough, and that could easily be done with just ten thousand votes.

Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

Once you take out illegals and dead people voting, California swings republican.

No real evidence of that, just claims.

Re:States can get serious

[MadCat221]

"and yes some Democrats are dirtbags on the issue too, despite what comes out of their mouths."

So can you show me the numbers where the votes against Leahy's proposal were about equally D and R? Otherwise, it looks like a classic "Both Sides Are Bad (So Vote Republican)" retort.

Re:States can get serious

[CrimsonAvenger]

Its not even clear, states have to put the presidential election on a ballot.

Quite so. There is no requirement that there be an election for Pres/VP at State level. Electors are what are chosen at the State level, and there is no specific requirement as to how Electors are chosen.

Note that if the Electors worked as designed by the Founders, two of the Electors from each State would be chosen by the State governments (remember, originally, the Senators were representing their State, not the people of same) and the remainder by a separate election in each Congressional District.

Of course, as originally designed, it was possible to have Pres and VP be from different Parties, the winner of the Electoral College being Pres, and whomever (of whatever Party) came in second would be VP. That didn't last long though.

Sometimes I think it would've been better that way, sometimes not so much....

Re: States can get serious

[meglon]

Then they elected a majority republicans, and unlike Kansas, learned from the error.

Re:States can get serious

[Ichijo]

we can get the best security if each state implements different security measures

Like if some states used U2F security keys and others used SMS?

Re:States can get serious

[meglon]

Because it doesn't happen anywhere near the scale you mental midgets on the right say it does.... and often when it does, it's you conservatives doing it. But the numbers still don't justify the hardship it causes.

I'd be all for requiring ID at the polling place IF state officials were required to make sure that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in their state had the ID required.... at the STATES expense. All you fucking conservatives are doing is trying to add a poll tax.

Best solution: Every single citizen is immediately registered at 18, and is required to vote in every house/senate/presidential election.... and every single one of them can do it by mail, or, have polling places open for the 30 days prior to the election, 24/7. AND... anyone interfering with an attempt to vote, including lawmakers attempting to put restrictions on voting, are immediately arrested.

Re:States can get serious

[Anonymous Coward]

If "pro-foreign-intervention party" states are the only ones affected by foreign intervention, then nothing will change with or without additional security. Those states will still be won by that party.

A reasonable argument.

Take a step back from emotional reasoning. You are making a fool of yourself.

And then you run off into the weeds. But hey, if it lets you feel superior...

Re:States can get serious

[Highdude702]

I like this idea. They could ship one to sales force red team and let them play for a month or 3 before purchase. They have the talent and the govt backing.

Re: States can get serious

[jeff4747]

Sure there is. You can add up all the confirmed cases of in-person voting fraud, and use it as an estimate of how likely it is that there are millions of people committing in-person voter fraud in California.

In the 2016 election there were....4 cases. Across the entire United States. Btw, two were Trump voters, so our massive number of four cases were not exactly shifting the electoral results to one party.

That makes it really, really unlikely that there are millions of cases of in-person voter fraud in California. Especially since it would require millions of people to not talk about their crimes.

There's also the fact that public polling in California does not indicate a latent Republican majority being defrauded. And if you want to claim that's just the ebil librul media, Fox News polling shows the same.

But people like you will pay lots of money for entertainers to lie to you about voter fraud, so they're gonna keep lying to you.

Re:States can get serious

[JoePete]

Maybe in some countries, but under our system of government, there is no such thing as a "national election." The president is elected by the states - not the people. While there is a convention of a national popular vote, that each state then uses to determine how to distribute its electoral votes (but not consistently among all 50 mind you), it is a process determined by state legislatures. Of course we are past the tipping point in the U.S. where very few people understand the design of the government. So by all means I expect I fully expect Congress to do something stupid and wasteful like attempt to impose a national election system on everyone. To boot, I fully expect Congress to require the thing run Windows NT.

Re:States can get serious

[meglon]

No dipshit, it's the realization that EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE should get to, and stupid fucking idiots like you can't tell them they can't. https://www.citylab.com/equity...

Re:States can get serious

[meglon]

You're a fucking idiot. Oh, and a fucking coward... that much was obvious.

Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to dispute the claim either.

There is also no evidence to dispute the claim Trump's brain is controlled by space aliens. But that doesn't make it an "almost truth" ... although, that hair ...

Re:States can get serious

[_Sharp'r_]

The article summary would sound a little different if they also included this line from the article:

Republicans said new money was not needed so soon after Congress approved $380 million in March for the state grant program.

Re: States can get serious

[Cajun Hell]

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to dispute the claim either.

And that is why everyone believes in unicorns.

Re:States can get serious

[mysidia]

All the anti-tampering methods in the world can be for naught if you let people in the polling booth without adequate identification, so that people can have registered to vote multiple times under different names and cast different votes in different precincts.... If the feds want to get serious the first thing they should fund is controls over what LOCAL HUMANS can enter a polling booth, and ensuring adequate Identification for every voter.

Re:States can get serious

[tbannist]

If "pro-foreign-intervention party" states are the only ones affected by foreign intervention, then nothing will change with or without additional security. Those states will still be won by that party.

After all, what's the difference between a state sending 3 Democrats and 7 Republicans to congress (with a 50-50 popular vote split, see gerrymandering) or 0 Democrats and 10 Republicans with a 3-97 hacked vote split, right? Where's the harm in letting Russians decide the outcome in a few states? Maybe they'll even pick some libertarian or green candidates to win, and won't that be fun?

</sarcasm> for the humor impaired.

Re: States can get serious

[tbannist]

And why they also believe there is a dragon in my garage.

Re: States can get serious

[Maelwryth]

You don't need to hack everything. Just the swing states....or even just the swing counties....will do.

Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

And that is why everyone believes in unicorns.

I dated one. Unicorns exist and I have proof.

However, most don't look related to horses (except for maybe from behind).

Re: States can get serious

[sound vision]

It's great that money is being put aside, but the real question is, would it be used effectively? We could, for example, require some baseline measures of security for the states to get the money. But the summary and none of the comments so far talk about that. This is where Slashdot used to shine, I remember ca. 2003 or 4 , when electronic election integrity first became a big issue, there were lots of discussions on how technically feasible it would be, what steps would be implemented... Now, all the substance is gone. Replaced by bots, paid trolls, and those who are so vapid that you can't discern between the three.

Oh, and our elections systems are still just as insecure as in 2003. I wonder where to get real discussion today... Facebook?

Re:States can get serious

[datavirtue]

They would all buy from the same vendor to keep from prolonging the acquisition phase and to avoid digging deep into the details. Oh Diebold!? Sweet, sign us up...you guys are secure, right? They will just equate the big corporate mutli-national name with warm assurances, assuming they are a safe bet. What they will get is a new voting kiosk with the same software from 2007. This is a joke...all of it.

Re: States can get serious

[currently_awake]

Texas votes Democrat, except for the gerymandering. Oh wow, what was fun. Now I see why you do it.

Re:States can get serious

[dryeo]

All the anti-tampering methods in the world can be for naught if the voter ID requirements are designed to disenfranchise certain groups of voters.

Re: States can get serious

[currently_awake]

Democracies have far fewer civil wars and less social unrest than any other form of government, because the people believe that if they have enough support to win a civil war they also have enough support to win an election. But only if they trust the elections are fair.

Re:States can get serious

[currently_awake]

Paper ballots work really well. Rigging the election requires a LOT of people in many regions of the country, it's easy to explain to the people how it works, and it scales with population size. The only downside is you need to wait until the next morning to see who won.

Re: States can get serious

[meglon]

Actually it's why they went from constant budget deficits and service reductions to having balanced budgets and service expansions... but thanks for confirming your stupidity.

Re:States can get serious

[iggymanz]

what part of "some Democrats" has any notion that there would be equal number of D's and R's against a proposal?

I only made the statement because I live in the land of crooked Democrats.

Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

So they allow Anonymous Cowards to vote?

Re: States can get serious

[Uberbah]

Because

1) The last thing the undocumented want is to bring attention from the state as that leads to them being deported.

2) The undocumented know that both political parties hate their guts. Trump didn't build this brutal deportation machine, he inherited it from Obama. And Hillary ran around telling everyone that child Honduran refugees (fleeing the coup she sponsored) should be deported 'to send a message to their parents'.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

1) The last thing the undocumented want is to bring attention from the state as that leads to them being deported.

You've ignored that the "sanctuary" state of California and the cities within have shown no inclination to do anything to deport illegal immigrants -- quite the opposite. San Francisco is now allowing them to vote in school elections, and some cities even bring them into the government.

2) The undocumented know that both political parties hate their guts.

*snort* The Democrats have become the party of illegal immigration. Immigrants are the party's base of the future. If Democrats were really serious about immigration, they'd work with Trump and bring a sane immigration policy that put American interests first.

Re: States can get serious

[Uberbah]

You've ignored that the "sanctuary" state of California and the cities within have shown no inclination to do anything to deport illegal immigrants -- quite the opposite.

You've ignored remedial civics - immigration is a federal issues, not a state issue. States no more have to worry about immigration than the FBI needs to worry about pet or noise ordinances in L.A.

San Francisco is now allowing them to vote in school elections, and some cities even bring them into the government.

And anyone who participates can count on making their own ICE Is videos in short order, proving my point.

*snort* The Democrats have become the party of illegal immigration. Immigrants are the party's base of the future. If Democrats were really serious about immigration, they'd work with Trump and bring a sane immigration policy that put American interests first.

You need to pull your head out of the wingnutosphere. Obama deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined, and the Clintons were for a border wall 20 years before it was cool. And remind us again who granted amnesty to millions of immigrants in the 80's?

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

You've ignored remedial civics - immigration is a federal issues, not a state issue. States no more have to worry about immigration than the FBI needs to worry about pet or noise ordinances in L.A.

You're engaging in pedantry. States and local governments routinely cooperate with federal officials on law enforcement issues. The Democrats have gone out of their way to not cooperate on illegal immigration.

And anyone who participates can count on making their own ICE Is videos in short order, proving my point.

All you've proved is that you can make a non-sequitur while linking to propaganda videos from friends-of-Democrats. *golf clap*

You haven't addressed that Democrats show no inclination of enforcing immigration laws -- quite the opposite. Yet somehow you think illegals will be in grave danger of voting when it's a local issue, not a federal one. Of course the Democrats blocked all efforts by Trump's administration to verify the integrity of the elections, and they are doing the same for a US citizenship question on the census.

You need to pull your head out of the wingnutosphere.

You need to look in the mirror and address the world as it is today.

Obama deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined

False. Also, it was Obama who unconstitutionally created the "DREAM"ers.

, and the Clintons were for a border wall 20 years before it was cool.

Obama and Clinton used to be against gay marriage, too. A lot has changed in 10 years. The Dems have moved hard-left as they've won issue after issue. What's left for them? Transgender bathroom "rights"? "Islamophobia"? Pedophiles? They've ditched the American worker, and the only sustainable base they have left is immigrants, who reliably vote Democrat.

And remind us again who granted amnesty to millions of immigrants in the 80's?

Remind me again how that was supposed to be a one-time thing, in exchange for fixing the border? Oh look, here we are again. And which party is fighting for MOAR immigrants, and fighting against a policy of limited immigration based on merit?

Re:States can get serious

[speedplane]

"All elections are local" ... The way our voting system works, if one state was "hacked" then the worst that would come of it would be the electoral votes from that one state would be potentially affected. This could swing an election, in theory, if a swing state was "hacked".

Okay, so duh, just hack Florida and Ohio.

Re:States can get serious

[dave420]

As you say, they just need to target swing states, so it's more a question of a handful of systems, not 50.

Re:States can get serious

[dave420]

Hardly - do you know how difficult it would be to swing a vote through this method, compared to silently flipping some bits or simply coercing the electorate through emotive social media campaigns?

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

It was shut down because Democrats refused to comply with requests for information.

Re:States can get serious

[bluefoxlucid]

The local human control is one of the first layers of security in elections. It's why we have designated polling places, and why we call names out loudly when you show up: other humans identify you, as you should live in the local neighborhood.

Registering for multiple voter IDs is actually relatively high risk and not generally coordinated due to being extremely high risk thanks to FBI tactics of leveraging one conspirator against others (informants). This is further discouraged by people in general leaking when they discover such a thing, so building your fraud network is hard. It's easier to build a coalition of thousands of voters to act as a bloc, or to manipulate the election rules by vote splitting and cloning (certain Condorcet methods and STV resist such manipulation).

Voter coercion and vote selling is the bigger concern, along with general disenfranchisement; we handle that by using secret ballots so you can't prove how you voted to anyone.

Re: States can get serious

[bluefoxlucid]

Can't change the database if you can validate the ballots from data collected by public observers under high-probability integrity guarantees. There are attacks against things like Military ballots et al (which arrive by mail and are processed through mail rooms and the Military post office), which we can handle probabilistically as well, although with higher risk of collusion even between parties; those ballots make up less of our total votes and, besides, I could design a similar voting process to document and disclose a secure election in military bases, ships, and deployments as well.

The last, of course, are general local absentee and mail-in ballots, and we're back to reducing the risk by requiring high collusion and isolating to a subset of ballots.

In the end, you want as many ballots independently verifiable as unchanged from those collected at the polls as possible. That's why security begins and ends at the ballot box: the rest is just making sure you can count your election.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

You mean the great DMV service that's ranked 4th in the nation by the people who use it?

https://www.syracuse.com/opini...

But of course some one who uses such a dumb metric for determining how well a state is governed wouldn't even know how the state did in said metric.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"If Democrats were really serious about immigration, they'd work with Trump and bring a sane immigration policy that put American interests first."

If Republicans were really serious about illegal immigration they'd propose solutions to illegal immigration that would actually stand a chance at working well like making the already existing e-verify system mandatory for employers in this country. No jobs for illegal immigrants means no illegal immigrants, it's incredibly simple.

But no, stupid ideas like a massively expensive wall that will do nothing to change the simple supply and demand nature of illegal immigration and the labor they provide and thus do very little to solve the problem is what's popular right now among Republicans.

The interesting part for me is pondering why Republican politicians talk tough but won't propose plans that will actually have an impact on illegal immigration. The only motive I can see is that our food comes overwhelmingly from Red states and Red regions of Blue states and the food industry probably profits the most from illegal immigrant labor in this country. My best guess is that Republican politicians don't want to do anything to upset big Ag and stop the money from flowing from them.

That last part I will freely admit is pure speculation on my part but the fact that the Republican party is more concerned about making noise about illegal immigration than they are about solving it is easily observed.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"The Dems have moved hard-left as they've won issue after issue."

You gave me a chuckle there.

The only realistic way to determine how far out of wack a given ideology is, is to compare it to others so as to be able to put it on a spectrum. Relative to other first world countries our Democrats are mild conservatives when it comes to economics. On social issues (which is what you seem to have a hard on for here) they are very much in line with mainstream political views throughout the first world which means they are not "hard" anything.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

The only realistic way to determine how far out of wack a given ideology is, is to compare it to others so as to be able to put it on a spectrum.

Last century the rest of the world was moving towards communism, while the US was the strongest supporter of capitalism. But it was the United States that was proven right.

On social issues (which is what you seem to have a hard on for here) they are very much in line with mainstream political views throughout the first world which means they are not "hard" anything.

Transgender "rights" are for something like 0.1% of the population, of which 99.9% of society are required to reprogram themselves and respect the delusions of an extremely tiny minority. Yes, you are hard-left if you think that a biological male that "identifies" as a woman has a right to hang out with biological women with his male genitalia hanging out.

But back to the main point, mass migration affects both social issues and economics. Welfare costs, schools, healthcare, and wages are all affected.

Re: States can get serious

[Uberbah]

You're engaging in pedantry.

Nothing pedantic about remedial civics. Again, states have to worry about immigration as much as the FBI needs to worry about pet shit on city streets.

All you've proved is that you can make a non-sequitur while linking to propaganda videos from friends-of-Democrats. *golf clap*

It's the opposite of a non sequitur - Ice Is will happily take note of undocumented school board officials et all and will arrest their asses. I'm starting to sense a pattern with you.

You haven't addressed that Democrats show no inclination of enforcing immigration laws -- quite the opposite.

What part of "Obama deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined" are you having a hard time understanding? You're engaging in the same willful denial of reality as Obamabots who think the main was sainted before birth - you guys hang out for coffee?

False.

True. You do know that Snopes is a much of a partisan hack outfit for Democrats as Fox News is for Republicans, yes?

Obama and Clinton used to be against gay marriage, too. A lot has changed in 10 years.

Nothing changed. Obama, the first black president, had a full "states rights" position on another minority - after spending years chumming it up with Rick "kill all the gays in Uganda" Warren. Hillary was publicly against gay marriage right up until SCOTUS made the point moot. All of the gains in gay rights at the federal level have come from the courts, in spite of Democrats.

What's left for them? Transgender bathroom "rights"? "Islamophobia"? Pedophiles? They've ditched the American worker, and the only sustainable base they have left is immigrants, who reliably vote Democrat.

No one stabs their base in the backs more viciously than the Democratic Party. Openly fearmongering over the possibility of Tump being president while ignoring the fact that Obama deported millions of people.

Remind me again how that was supposed to be a one-time thing, in exchange for fixing the border?

Border wall plus a brutal deportation system - what more did Democrats have to give you?

Re: States can get serious

[Uberbah]

Illegal alien, noun: a term used by the descendants of invaders to describe the descendants of native inhabitants.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

If Republicans were really serious about illegal immigration they'd propose solutions to illegal immigration that would actually stand a chance at working well like making the already existing e-verify system mandatory for employers in this country. No jobs for illegal immigrants means no illegal immigrants, it's incredibly simple.

How is that going to happen when Democrats opposed an amnesty grant for "Dreamers" in exchange for an immigration overhaul? Do you think they're ever going to accept nationally mandated e-verify? Democrat states have become "sanctuary" states. Democrats have become the party of illegal immigrants.

But no, stupid ideas like a massively expensive wall that will do nothing to change the simple supply and demand nature of illegal immigration and the labor they provide and thus do very little to solve the problem is what's popular right now among Republicans.

It was only 25 billion for the wall, along with an end to chain migration, and a focus on merit-based immigration. What were the Democrats opposed to?

That last part I will freely admit is pure speculation on my part but the fact that the Republican party is more concerned about making noise about illegal immigration than they are about solving it is easily observed.

Look at which states have mandated e-verify, versus which states are "sanctuary" states. I do agree there are business-friendly cuckservatives like Paul Ryan who have no interest in stamping out floods of cheap labor.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

Nothing pedantic about remedial civics.

It's pedantry when you ignore that states and cities routinely cooperate with federal officials in other areas, and that the Democrats explicitly made cooperation over immigration illegal.

Ice Is will happily take note of undocumented school board officials et all and will arrest their asses.

So where has that happened? Go on, post your link. Also explain how ICE is going to round up illegal voters when "sanctuary" cities/states run the local elections. I'm noticing a pattern in you, that you ignore major points, repeat yourself, and post stupid YouTube links.

What part of "Obama deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined" are you having a hard time understanding?

Hey look, you did it again, minus the dumb YouTube link. I've already addressed this. Your claim was bogus, you ignored the Obama-enacted "DREAMers", you ignored the Democrat "sanctuary" cities and states, and you ignored the Democrat fuss about a US citizenship question on the census.

You're engaging in the same willful denial of reality as Obamabots who think the main was sainted before birth - you guys hang out for coffee?

You accuse me of what you do: willful denial of reality.

Nothing changed. Obama, the first black president, had a full "states rights" position on another minority

You forgot that Obama supported gay marriage. The "states rights" was a fig-leaf, which Biden in his typically bungling fashion knocked aside. Obama was just playing politics.

All of the gains in gay rights at the federal level have come from the courts, in spite of Democrats.

It was the Obama administration that backed the US Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage across the land. Gay marriage was a Democrat issue, even if many of them were reluctant to be on the bleeding edge.

Border wall

What border wall? Why are we having fights over a border wall, which the Democrats refused to fund, then?

plus a brutal deportation system

Oh, is that why we have millions of illegal immigrants living here, with almost no chance of deportation, unless they commit a crime? Is that why Democrat cities/states have enacted "sanctuary" policies?

You're just upset that we enforce the border at all.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"How is that going to happen when Democrats opposed [politico.com] an amnesty grant for "Dreamers" in exchange for an immigration overhaul? Do you think they're ever going to accept nationally mandated e-verify? Democrat states have become "sanctuary" states. Democrats have become the party of illegal immigrants."

Republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency. If the Democrats can pass the Affordable Care act under such conditions then Republicans should be able to do something infinitely less complex like make using an alreadying existing e-verify system manditory.

Also, much of the Democratic opposition came from wall funding but again, that shouldn't matter right now.

"It was only 25 billion for the wall, along with an end to chain migration, and a focus on merit-based immigration. What were the Democrats opposed to?"

For starters, there are a lot of independent estimates that are much higher for the wall, plus there is the yearly maintenance. Even if 25 billion is correct though, that's a hell of a lot for something unlikely to work when there are far cheaper solutions that likely will (as I have already brought up) After that, it doesnt matter what the Democrats want or don't want on other issues because, as I state above, the Republicans shouldn't need Democrat help under current conditions.

Honestly I think you're under the old Republican mindset from under Obama where Republicans would never hold themselves accountable for our governance which they had quite a bit of control of "cause Obama". The problem with that mindset is that Obama is gone now and Republicans control all of our government, including now the supreme court with this latest nomination and yet they can't do anything meaningful like pass successful legislation on one of their most significant planks.

Republicans blaming Democrats for our bad governance right now just highlights Republican lack of will to do something or their general incompetence

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

Republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency. If the Democrats can pass the Affordable Care act under such conditions then Republicans should be able to do something infinitely less complex like make using an alreadying existing e-verify system manditory.

You're ignoring that Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 member majority.

Re: States can get serious

[Uberbah]

It's pedantry when you ignore that states and cities routinely cooperate with federal officials in other areas, and that the Democrats explicitly made cooperation over immigration illegal.

States are under no obligation to enforce federal law, and vice versa. Deal with it.

So where has that happened? Go on, post your link.

Look at your own link and note the racists (nativists), getting the vapors at these ideas. Of course people will rat them out if ICE doesn't find them on their own.

I've already addressed this.

With a laughable source that has zero credibility on partisan issues. Snopes is the same hack outfit that twisted itself into knots to justify Hillary's corruption on the Uranium One deal.

You accuse me of what you do: willful denial of reality.

Denial of the reality where Trump is going to need a second term if he wants to catch up to Obama's deportation record? Your continued projection is noted.

You forgot that Obama supported gay marriage.

He opposed gay marriage and compared it to bestiality in court. Facts. You're engaging in the same Obamabot delusion of looking at (some) of the man's words while ignoring his actions completely.

Obama was just playing politics.

The light bulb is starting to flicker! Keep it up and in a few years you might be caught up to events that happened a decade ago.

Oh, is that why we have millions of illegal immigrants living here, with almost no chance of deportation, unless they commit a crime? Is that why Democrat cities/states have enacted "sanctuary" policies?

So you just want to tear up most of the bill of rights just to suit your nativist jihad.

You're just upset that we enforce the border at all.

Borders formed 100% on land that was taken illegally? DO get over yourselves. That and the fact that you'd be hard pressed to name a single latin american country that has NOT been overthrown by the CIA. Morally you owe trillions in reparations for 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine - so you can at least shut. the. fuck. up. and let Margarita come and clean office buildings overnight when here parents were murdered by a CIA-backed death squad.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"Last century the rest of the world was moving towards communism..."

No it wasn't. Some portions certainly were but the entirety of the West never seriously entertained communism and neither did most third world countries.

"Transgender "rights" are for something like 0.1% of the population, of which 99.9% of society are required to reprogram themselves and respect the delusions of an extremely tiny minority."

One of the founding philosophies of this country was the need to protect minority rights.

"of which 99.9% of society are required to reprogram themselves and respect the delusions of an extremely tiny minority. "

Quite a bit of our population had to "reprogram" after slavery ended and the civil rights movement and we all agree we came out the better for it now. Maybe that's just the reprogramming talking though. What do you think?

Furthermore, it wouldn't be 99.9% requiring reprogramming, it would only be whatever percentage of people get enraged by some one taking a dump in a public rest room that matches the sex they identify with rather then the one they were born. Right now it looks like that is slightly less than half the country ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/2... )

"Yes, you are hard-left if you think that a biological male that "identifies" as a woman has a right to hang out with biological women with his male genitalia hanging [tmj4.com] out."

And you've never used a public rest room if you think that's what goes on in them. You make it sound like a porn shoot in one of those things. In all my time on this earth I've never seen a mans dick in a public rest room and we men use urinals. Lady's have all their sensitive business conducted in stalls.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

You're ignoring that the Republicans haven't even tried to use their majority in all areas to pass meaningful legistlation in regards to illegal immigration without that stupid wall attached.

Honestly, after the last election I was thinking "well at least we'll see the deficit cut and have something meaningful done about illegal immigration" which are two big reasons I'm an independent and not a Democrat. Now our defficit is significantly worse and all of the Republican attempts at immigration are tied to that albatross of a wall.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

States are under no obligation to enforce federal law

It's not a matter of legal obligation. It's a matter of what they normally choose to do in other areas of federal law, and what they have chosen to do in explicit opposition to federal enforcement of illegal immigration. Of course you know this, which is why you're engaging in pedantry instead of addressing my point.

Look at your own link and note the racists (nativists), getting the vapors at these ideas.

That link was from 2015. Where's your link showing they were deported by ICE? That's right, you don't have one.

With a laughable source that has zero credibility on partisan issues. Snopes is the same hack outfit that twisted itself into knots to justify Hillary's corruption on the Uranium One deal.

I agree Snopes can be partisan. However, they make reference-based claims which are up to you to dispute. You have not done so, because you know on this issue they are correct. You also haven't addressed the Obama DREAMers, the "sanctuary" cities/states, or the Democrat fuss over the citizenship question on the US census.

He opposed gay marriage and compared it to bestiality in court. Facts.

I searched for this, and the closest I could find was a reference to Huckabee. You're going to need a reference for your "fact". I'll put my money on you not providing one.

You're engaging in the same Obamabot delusion of looking at (some) of the man's words while ignoring his actions completely.

You mean when his administration came out in support of gay marriage, backing US courts? You're the delusional one, caught up in the past of a hesitant Obama who came out in full support once the political winds shifted.

Keep it up and in a few years you might be caught up to events that happened a decade ago.

Maybe if you stopped pretending that time stopped moving ten years ago you'd catch up to today's political reality.

So you just want to tear up most of the bill of rights just to suit your nativist jihad.

Lulz, there is no "bill of rights" to live in the country illegally. We have people here who openly declare they are illegal immigrants.

Borders formed 100% on land that was taken illegally?

Cry me a fucking river. That's what ever migrating people have done, including the Spaniards who slaughtered the Aztecs and created Mexico. But thanks for confirming that you don't believe in borders, dipshit.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

You're ignoring that the Republicans haven't even tried to use their majority in all areas to pass meaningful legistlation in regards to illegal immigration without that stupid wall attached.

Oh, so "the wall" is what's holding this up? And not immigration reform? And considering all the government waste that goes on, why is $25 billion dollars towards a wall the deal-killer?

The Democrats have demanded a "clean" amnesty bill, which means they want amnesty and nothing else.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

No it wasn't. Some portions certainly were but the entirety of the West never seriously entertained communism and neither did most third world countries.

The US was the strongest defender of capitalism. Much of Europe was leaning towards socialist policies.

One of the founding philosophies of this country was the need to protect minority rights.

There is no minority "right" for 99.9% of the people to respect the delusions of 0.1% of the people.

And you've never used a public rest room if you think that's what goes on in them.

I gave you a link for a real-world case. It was a locker room, not a public rest room.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

This is the last attempt that I know of by Republicans to pass immigration reform

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27...

Republicans can not blame Democrats for failing by 90 votes when they have a majority in the House.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

Republicans can not blame Democrats for failing by 90 votes when they have a majority in the House.

There wasn't a single Democrat vote for it, and the Democrats derided it. Even if it passed in the House, it would not have passed in the Senate. If Democrats were not the party of illegal immigration, there wouldn't be this divide and we'd have an immigration overhaul that made sense for Americans.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"The US was the strongest defender of capitalism. Much of Europe was leaning towards socialist policies"

We have socialist policies in this country right here and now. Sorry but there has never been any danger of the West going communist on its own let alone Western Europeans who invented the concept of capitalism and are very capitalistic to this day. The only threat communism posed to the West was militaristic.

"There is no minority "right" for 99.9% of the people to respect the delusions of 0.1% of the people."

And once upon a time there were no rights allowed at all for the small minority that was black slaves either, What's your point?

Furthermore, they really aren't delusions if 51% of Americans believe that they should exist.

"I gave you a link for a real-world case. It was a locker room, not a public rest room."

Cool, so you spend your time looking at people's junk in changing rooms?

Honestly, I've never understood the objection to having a transgender person in the some changing room as the sex they identify as. Odds are you're not so attractive that anyone wants to look at you naked and if you are then you are way more likely to have a run-of-the-mill gay person taking a peak at you then a transgender person as they are generally interested in the opposite gender from what they identify as.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"There wasn't a single Democrat vote for it, and the Democrats derided it. Even if it passed in the House, it would not have passed in the Senate."

There wasn't a single Democratic vote for Trump's tax bill that put us even more massively in debt in either the House or the Senate either.

You're deluding yourself by not holding Republicans to their failures and the party's ideals become weaker for every person that does this.

Re:States can get serious

[mysidia]

silently flipping some bits or simply coercing the electorate through emotive social media campaigns?

Emotive social media campaigns are protected free speech; not voting system tampering.
Campaigns involving spreading a message or idea may be a powerful way to influence outcomes, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.

Preventing someone from silently flipping bits is the primary objective that polling systems are supposed to be trying to achieve.
If the states have not gotten what they paid for, then this is an issue their vendors need to fix, or be subject to fines.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

We have socialist policies in this country right here and now.

And we're always told how we should look to Europe for more.

And once upon a time there were no rights allowed at all for the small minority that was black slaves either, What's your point?

My point is that all "rights" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between not enslaving somebody versus being forced to respect the delusions of 0.1% the population.

Furthermore, they really aren't delusions if 51% of Americans believe that they should exist.

Yes, they are. Somebody who believes Santa Claus is real is delusional, whether I pander to those beliefs or not.

Cool, so you spend your time looking at people's junk in changing rooms?

Why don't you ask the women who were confronted with a biological male's genitalia? So progressive!

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

There wasn't a single Democratic vote for Trump's tax bill that put us even more massively in debt in either the House or the Senate either.

It was a budget bill. They didn't have to avoid a filibuster.

You're deluding yourself by not holding Republicans to their failures and the party's ideals become weaker for every person that does this.

If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer of manslaughter?

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"And we're always told how we should look to Europe for more."

Hey, they have ones that clearly work that we don't over here. Take socialized medicine. The UK's socialized medicine costs their country less than half of what our healthcare does per capita and is available to everyone. Sure, our healthcare is better than there's but it is most definitely not twice as good. In this case, socialism would save us money.

"My point is that all "rights" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between not enslaving somebody versus being forced to respect the delusions of 0.1% the population."

As pointed out already, 51% of the country doesn't think they're delusions.

"Yes, they are. Somebody who believes Santa Claus is real is delusional, whether I pander to those beliefs or not."

Your example is dumb as Santa does not exist. Meanwhile there are people born as one sex who really do identify as the other.

"Why don't you ask the women who were confronted with a biological male's genitalia? So progressive!"

You obviously didn't look at the link I posted. Women are actually far more likely to support transgender rights then men are. Your "But think of the precious ladies!" doesn't hold water.

Re: States can get serious

[jeff4747]

Given that California is a "sanctuary" state, what makes you think officials there would do what it takes to look for election fraud?

First, doing anything to attract attention to yourself is a fantastic way to get deported. Going to a polling place is something that attracts attention.

Second, committing a felony is an even more fantastic way to get deported (entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor, BTW)

Third, there are Republicans staffing every polling place in California. Both parties supply poll workers to ensure the other party isn't cheating.

Fourth, poll workers don't just hand out ballots to everyone in line. The person has to be registered, they have to recite their name and address, and then the poll workers mark them as having received a ballot. Which means when the real voter shows up and tries to cast a ballot, the poll workers, including the Republican ones, immediately detect that there is a problem. Even if they don't literally catch the person who committed voter fraud, they know it happened. And if it requires millions of people to do it, it's not possible to have zero cases where both the real and fake voter attempt to vote.

Fifth, you are asserting that millions of people can remain absolutely silent about their crimes, and have done so over many, many years. The fact that you know there are undocumented workers in the US, and that they provide false documentation for I-9 forms, demonstrates that this is false.

Sixth, registration isn't just "turn in the form and you get a ballot". Your data is verified in the relevant databases.

Seventh, "sanctuary state" means jack shit for this. All it means is the state law enforcement will not do the work for federal law enforcement. It's the feds jobs to enforce immigration law, so the feds need to do the work or pay for it. Also, it's going to be hilarious when the right starts trying to argue about "state's rights" after being so angry with California following that doctrine.

Seventh, if you actually gave a damn about people entering the country illegally, you'd want to go after the employers who illegally employ those workers. No jobs, no workers coming for those jobs. The employers have fixed addresses so they're easy to find, and they already have to turn forms in to the government demonstrating their crime. It's incredibly easy to catch them......but you want to build a wall instead....because apparently you think they don't have access to the amazing technology known as "a boat".

So they'll keep telling you it's those "damn illegals" with zero evidence. Because you'll happily eat up any story that fits your worldview no matter how false it is.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"It was a budget bill. They didn't have to avoid a filibuster."

Yes I understand that. That's not the point at all. The point is that the Republicans can't even get a simple majority for immigration reform on their own so complaining that they can't get a super majority because of Democrats is stupid.

"If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition [vox.com] of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer [cbsnews.com] of manslaughter?"

Here's the thing, we all care about more than one issue. Sure, the Democrats won't get us to illegal immigration reform, that I absolutely agree with. The other side though is that Republicans seem to be very unlikely to pass meaningful reform as their main points of focus are worthless anyways. It's the same thing with the national debt for me, yeah Republicans talk tough on it but they have no realistic plan for handling it and have now, once again, very obviously made it much, much worse. This is why I generally vote Democrat for national elections, the republicans talk on illegal immigration and the debt very clearly does not match their walk. Meanwhile Democrats seem to sometimes deliver on their promises in areas that we both support.

Re: States can get serious

[jeff4747]

You've ignored that the "sanctuary" state of California and the cities within have shown no inclination to do anything to deport illegal immigrants

Which federal laws are states required to enforce? Heck, which federal laws are state law enforcement allowed to enforce? (I'll give you a hint: none). Also, remember all the times you got upset about "state's rights"? Well, here's an open-and-shut state's rights issue. Yet you're so upset about following "state's rights" doctrine in this case.

*snort* The Democrats have become the party of illegal immigration. Immigrants are the party's base of the future. If Democrats were really serious about immigration, they'd work with Trump and bring a sane immigration policy that put American interests first.

The rate of deportations during the Obama administration skyrocketed. Obama ended a whole lot of Bush administration policies that allowed undocumented workers to work in the US. The only new thing Trump is doing on the border is 1) child abuse, and 2) illegally arresting people who attempt to claim asylum. Neither one has significantly increased the rate of deportations from the Obama administration.

Why'd Obama do this? He believed that a "get tough" policy would help the Republicans work with him to bring a sane immigration policy that put American interest first. The fact that you know zero of these facts demonstrates just how willing the Republicans are to work with Democrats to do so.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

As pointed out already, 51% of the country doesn't think they're delusions.

As was already pointed out, 51% may choose to pander to those delusions, but it is not the same as believing those delusions are real. Of that 51%, how many would choose a sexual partner that was transgender?

Your example is dumb as Santa does not exist. Meanwhile there are people born as one sex who really do identify as the other.

And many people identify as Jesus Christ returned. "Identifying" as the opposite sex doesn't change the basic biological facts.

Women are actually far more likely to support transgender rights then men are. Your "But think of the precious ladies!" doesn't hold water.

When it came down to brass tacks, it was women who made the complaint about the transgender dude hanging around in their locker room with his genitalia exposed. That's the problem with the bleeding heart liberals in this country -- they're willing to support the "oppressed" minority with rules and regulations, but they don't think about the impact until they are confronted with it.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"As was already pointed out, 51% may choose to pander to those delusions, but it is not the same as believing those delusions are real. Of that 51%, how many would choose a sexual partner that was transgender?"

How is supporting equal rights the same as who one is sexually attracted to? I'm a man who likes women, does that mean I can't support gay rights? If I'm into Asian ladies do I have like the fact that black people in this country are disproportionately poor? You're being ridiculous.

"And many people identify as Jesus Christ returned. "Identifying" as the opposite sex doesn't change the basic biological facts."

The argument in favor of letting transgender people use the restroom for the gender they identify with is obviously not based on "basic biological facts". No one is claiming their sexual organs magically change because they identify as a different gender.

"When it came down to brass tacks, it was women who made the complaint about the transgender dude hanging around in their locker room with his genitalia exposed. That's the problem with the bleeding heart liberals in this country -- they're willing to support the "oppressed" minority with rules and regulations, but they don't think about the impact until they are confronted with it."

I'm sure there were a lot of people offended when blacks were able to eat in the same restaurant as white people too, that doesn't mean that desegregation was wrong.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

First, doing anything to attract attention to yourself is a fantastic way to get deported. Going to a polling place is something that attracts attention.

No it isn't. You're part of the crowd. We also have illegals that openly protest against immigration enforcement. We have illegals that are openly part of city councils. Our enforcement is a joke.

Second, committing a felony is an even more fantastic way to get deported (entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor, BTW)

It doesn't matter if the likelihood of getting caught is virtually zero.

The person has to be registered, they have to recite their name and address, and then the poll workers mark them as having received a ballot. Which means when the real voter shows up and tries to cast a ballot, the poll workers, including the Republican ones, immediately detect that there is a problem. [..] Sixth, registration isn't just "turn in the form and you get a ballot". Your data is verified in the relevant databases.

Then why are lawsuits necessary to force governments to clean up their voter rolls?

Fifth, you are asserting that millions of people can remain absolutely silent about their crimes, and have done so over many, many years. The fact that you know there are undocumented workers in the US, and that they provide false documentation for I-9 forms, demonstrates that this is false.

If these databases were so effective, then why are so many allowed to get away with identity fraud? And just because a dopey politician brazenly admits how many of his family and friends rely on fraudulent IDs doesn't mean they'll do the same with voting. But I think it's telling when President Obama was asked about illegals being able to vote, and he reassures the interviewee that voting is private, before finally acknowledging that it's US citizens who are supposed to vote.

Seventh, if you actually gave a damn about people entering the country illegally, you'd want to go after the employers who illegally employ those workers.

Who says I don't?

No jobs, no workers coming for those jobs.

Because there's no such thing as welfare fraud? There's no such thing as an underground economy? There's no such thing as free schooling and healthcare for illegals? There's no such thing as anchor babies?

but you want to build a wall instead

Who says you can't do both?

because apparently you think they don't have access to the amazing technology known as "a boat"

Apparently you don't realize the importance of deterrents.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

Here's the thing, we all care about more than one issue.

So what Democrat issues are more important to you?

The other side though is that Republicans seem to be very unlikely to pass meaningful reform as their main points of focus are worthless anyways.

They were actually pretty close, based on your links, including the e-verify that you wanted.

It's the same thing with the national debt for me, yeah Republicans talk tough on it but they have no realistic plan for handling it and have now, once again, very obviously made it much, much worse.

I agree. But I have also come to the conclusion that debt is unsolvable, because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. It requires an ever-growing inflation to pay off interest. Money is debt. Great for the bankers, not so great for the rest of us.

Re:States can get serious

[mysidia]

be for naught if the voter ID requirements are designed to disenfranchise certain groups of voters.

It shouldn't disenfranchise anyone, unless they're in a group such as unlawful residents or convicted Felons who are not to be voting.
That would be a last thing we need.... felons forming more NAMBLA-like groups to elect representatives in order to
soften criminal statutes like burglary or reduce enforcement or take protections off the books.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

Which federal laws are states required to enforce?

None.

Heck, which federal laws are state law enforcement allowed to enforce? (I'll give you a hint: none).

Wrong.

The rate of deportations during the Obama administration skyrocketed.

You, too?

Obama ended a whole lot of Bush administration policies that allowed undocumented workers to work in the US.

Such as? And what about those DREAMers that Obama created out of thin air?

The only new thing Trump is doing on the border is 1) child abuse

*snort* You mean he ended catch-and-release by traffickers using kids as pawns, but caved in due to media outrage.

2) illegally arresting people who attempt to claim asylum.

*snort* You mean arresting people who entered the country illegally, just like Obama did (see linked Snopes article).

Why'd Obama do this? He believed that a "get tough" policy would help the Republicans work with him to bring a sane immigration policy that put American interest first.

Oh, so Obama wanted to end chain migration, get tough on deportation, and enact a merit-based immigration policy? Did Obama want federally mandated e-verify nation-wide? How many Muslims immigrated to the United States under Obama?

The fact that you know zero of these facts demonstrates just how willing the Republicans are to work with Democrats to do so.

*snort* Democrats are the party of illegal immigrants. And whatever you think of Obama, he is no longer in office, and Democrats today have absolutely caved to open borders and don't give a rats ass about putting American interests first.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

How is supporting equal rights the same as who one is sexually attracted to?

We were talking about delusions, remember? It's not "equal rights", it's pandering to the delusions of mentally ill people. You claimed they weren't delusions. You were wrong, as you know people will not truly accept a transgender as the sex they aren't.

Re: States can get serious

[skam240]

"We were talking about delusions, remember?"

No, I remember you stating that but that is not what "we are talking about". Being a transexual is widely regarded amoung psycologists as an intrinsic part of these people's identity much like being a guy is for me or being whatever you are to you. They can't be "reprogrammed" anymore than you or I can.

"You were wrong, as you know people will not truly accept a transgender as the sex they aren't."

51% of Americans are willing to accept them in the rest room whose gender assignment they identify with.

Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

No, I remember you stating that but that is not what "we are talking about".

Selective memory, then? I stated delusions were being pandered to, you denied they were delusions because of 51% support for legal "protections". Then when the cold, hard truth is brought up, that the vast majority don't truly accept transgenders as the opposite sex, you feign ignorance and try to change the subject.

Being a transexual is widely regarded amoung psycologists as an intrinsic part of these people's identity much like being a guy is for me or being whatever you are to you.

So? How is that any different than somebody with a Jesus Christ identity? However they feel, it's a delusion, and I'm not going to pander to it, let alone enshrine legal "rights" under the law.

By the way, transgender identity isn't as hardwired as you think. Many kids who are nominally transgender grow out of it.

Re:States can get serious

[dryeo]

Well here in Canada, my wife got disenfranchised by simply the government changing the name she was registered under, from her maiden name that she has always voted and is what her ID has on it to my name, on the eve of the election, as in the day before the voters web site showed she was registered correctly. My son got disenfranchised due to it being too onerous to get the proper ID, $75 and a 60 mile round trip during business hours with no transit.
Other ways to disenfranchise include things like a typo in the voters list so your ID doesn't agree with the name you're registered under, onerous address requirements so people like university students don't have the right address to vote.
We've had ID requirements for voting in Canada for a long time and it worked fine until the Conservatives got enough power to unilaterally change things and took advice from the American Republican party on how to prevent those demographics that aren't likely to vote for them disenfranchised. It is always going to be a problem that changes in government can mean a well working system can be sabotaged.

It's also amazing that in the 21st century that groups of people aren't allowed to vote down there. Feudal ideas like removing civil rights from people permanently so they can't reintegrate into society and if arrested for a political crime like having the wrong plant, their vote can be taken away so they can't vote to change the unjust law.
Then there's the founding principal of America, no taxation without representation, that so many Americans no longer believe in.

Re:States can get serious

[iggymanz]

Party dependent? eh?

I live in Crook County, IL

The democrats here do hacking, it's a tradition over a century old, "where the dead vote early, and often"

Re:States can get serious

[AutodidactLabrat]

Well, except for the utter lack of proof....(since 1940, anyway)

Much bigger threat

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a much bigger threat to our elections that they refuse to do anything about. Gerrymandering. It's legal election fixing.

Re:Much bigger threat

[serviscope_minor]

Well it's a hobby of the Republicans at the moment and they're the ones in power. They're not going to make a fairer system if it harms them.

I now await a reply along the lines of "what about something unrelated bad the Democrats did", as if one bad action somehow justifies another one.

Re:Much bigger threat

[oldgraybeard]

Like most everything political. View points about Gerrymandering just revolve around is it working the way those who did it wanted. Your side did it Good!, The other side did it Bad!.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Much bigger threat

[meglon]

A good solution to that problem would be to use computers to draw the lines in close to basic geometric shapes, without dividing up towns/cities (unless needed). Take the process out of the hands of anyone who might show bias.

Re:Much bigger threat

[bobbied]

This has always been true... The party in power has ALWAYS done this and unless the people get tired of it always will.

The really sneaky thing is that everybody uses this issue to whip up the base and drive voter turn out. "See how unfair the other party is! Se how they ignore principle and ethics! Throw the bums out!"

Re:Much bigger threat

[Highdude702]

Fuck that. I consider myself a republican(but I don't tow the party line) and I believe there should be term limits on everything right down to dog catcher.

Re:Much bigger threat

[oldgraybeard]

So true ;)

Re:Much bigger threat

[serviscope_minor]

Fuck that. I consider myself a republican

Well, I guess, after all you do seem to want to force burly, bearded dudes into women's bathrooms. That seems to be a republican thing for some reason though I can't for the life of me see why ayone would want that.

Takes all sorts I guess.

Re:Much bigger threat

[Highdude702]

yes because taking a bunch of fucking hormones your body isn't supposed to have at those levels is "normal", the fact that you're so blinded by social justice and the like is why you look more often than not to be a babbling moron. at least i can admit that my world view isn't perfect. you're whats wrong with society.

Re:Much bigger threat

[currently_awake]

The term limit on President means Obama can't run against Trump. Are you sure you don't want that?

Re:Much bigger threat

[Highdude702]

lol

Re:Much bigger threat

[serviscope_minor]

yes

Quite. Now tell my why you want dude person in the ladies:

http://stream.aljazeera.com/si...

I think you're pretty weird for wanting him in the ladies. I think maybe you want it so YOU can go in and have plausible deniability.

Re:Much bigger threat

[Highdude702]

moronic fuck

Re:Much bigger threat

[aquacrayfish]

It's going to be a difficult threat to resolve indeed.

Re:Much bigger threat

[serviscope_minor]

You keep saying you want people born as women in women's bathrooms, and I've shown you pictures of burly bearded dudes who were born as women.

I want to know why you want to force them into women's bathrooms.

I think it's so it provides a plausible deniable cover for you. It's the only explanation I can think of because forcing dudes like that into the ladies is mushy plain weird. I think it's because you're a creeper.

Why change what's working?

[mspohr]

The Republicans are very happy with the situation now. Easy for Vlad to help out keeping them in power. Why risk upsetting the gravy train?

Re:Why change what's working?

[Vermonter]

Seems like every time we upgrade to the latest and greatest voting machines, they are found to have serious security flaws. I am not convinced that throwing a ton of money at upgrading voting machines would really fix the issue of security.

Re:Why change what's working?

[TFlan91]

Fuck machines, throw that money at >=$15/hr jobs where people hand count paper ballots.

Temp work is work. Who cares if CNN/Fox Shit/etc don't have immediate counts to give audiences, go vote, watch the news about exit polls, but then go to sleep and wait a couple days for a legitimate count.

Fuckin instant satisfaction is the true illness here.

Re:Why change what's working?

[Kenja]

It is a mistake to think that Russia is on their "side". They are interested in conflict, not one side winning over the other.

Re:Why change what's working?

[XxtraLarGe]

It is a mistake to think that Russia is on their "side". They are interested in conflict, not one side winning over the other.

This is true, but you need to be careful, because it conflicts with the mainstream /. narrative. You'll most likely be downmodded & have an AC call you a Russian troll.

Re:Why change what's working?

[sexconker]

Hey. Get that shit out of here. It shows a basic understanding of how our government is designed. Parading that kind of information about is offensive.

Re:Why change what's working?

[acoustix]

This is a matter for the states. they are in control of their voting machines, not the federal government.

Re:Why change what's working?

[meglon]

Take the money, hire a team of Las Vega casino security people, tell them to fix it. It's what they do, and do very well.

Re:Why change what's working?

[meglon]

But they definitely do have their preference on who wins. Lets face it, the only two countries where Trump was more popular than Hillary prior to the election was Russia and Israel... which says something. Russia is on Russia's side, but they know it'd be easier to manipulation Mr Narcissist than Hillary, regardless if they have dirt on him or not.

Re:Why change what's working?

[_Sharp'r_]

So, if the Republicans had already approved $380 million three months ago for States to spend on election security, that'd prove your point completely wrong, yeah?

'Cause they did....

Re:Why change what's working?

[Rick Schumann]

The Republicans are very happy with the situation now. Easy for Vlad to help out keeping them in power. Why risk upsetting the gravy train?

Hear, hear!
Perhaps the Mueller investigation should be expanded to include the entire RNC, or at least all sitting Republican Congresspeople, for Russian collusion.
Or perhaps the reason is less obvious: that somehow not upgrading voting systems has something to do with making it easier to deny voting rights to minorities.

Re:Why change what's working?

[jeff4747]

It's really common for politicians to do things that are only in their short-term interest with zero thought to long-term consequences.

The fact that Russia may help your opponents in the future does not mean they are unwilling to accept that help right now.

Re:Why change what's working?

[mesterha]

It is a mistake to think that Russia is on their "side". They are interested in conflict, not one side winning over the other.

I disagree. Like any country, they are interested in the side winning that is most likely to give them what they want. Of course, the particular side might change over time, but it's likely that in 2016 that was Trump.

Re:Why change what's working?

[jareth-0205]

Fuck machines, throw that money at >=$15/hr jobs where people hand count paper ballots.

Temp work is work. Who cares if CNN/Fox Shit/etc don't have immediate counts to give audiences, go vote, watch the news about exit polls, but then go to sleep and wait a couple days for a legitimate count.

Fuckin instant satisfaction is the true illness here.

Also the rest of the world seem to have no problem with paper ballots. They're not particularly expensive, very hard to defraud in a mass undetectable way like you can with electronic systems, easy to confirm, hard to trace to any individual... Some things just don't need to be electronic.

Re:Why change what's working?

[currently_awake]

Russia wants the American Empire to collapse so America will stop meddling with Russia (including nearby countries the Russians claim as their sphere of influence). Given that the Republican party appears to be trying to spend America into ruin I suggest they ARE allies (at some level).

Re:Why change what's working?

[Uberbah]

Like any country, they are interested in the side winning that is most likely to give them what they want. Of course, the particular side might change over time, but it's likely that in 2016 that was Trump.

What they "wanted" was a president vastly more confrontational than Obama ever was? And Obama overthrew a country on Russia's doorstep and send the highest number of troops to eastern Europe since WWII.

This is one of the larger plot holes in Russiagate - but there's plenty more to choose from.

Re:Why change what's working?

[Uberbah]

If you actually believe any of that stuff, I know this Nigerian prince who will make you rich if you can wire his sister $30,000 to bail him out of jail....

Re:Why change what's working?

[Uberbah]

Parading that kind of information about is offensive.

I would say anal retentive pedantry (that is actually wrong) is obnoxious more so than offensive (PP said nothing about there being a popular vote for POTUS).

Re: Why change what's working?

[houghi]

This gies for both parties. They are both happy with it. There are plenty of ways to break up the two party system. Getting rid of winner takes all is one. Getting rid of computers in the voting system is just a minute detail.

Re:Why change what's working?

[mesterha]

What they "wanted" was a president vastly more confrontational than Obama ever was? And Obama overthrew a country on Russia's doorstep and send the highest number of troops to eastern Europe since WWII.

The story is that Putin really doesn't like Hilary; however, I've never seen anything to back that up. As for Trump, he acts very strange with Russia, but then again he acts somewhat strange with lots of the autocrats and dictators.

This is one of the larger plot holes in Russiagate - but there's plenty more to choose from.

Plot holes or not, it's worth a thorough investigation. I'm sure lots of countries try to influence our elections and hopefully this will lead to improving our security and perhaps understanding the new issues that social media introduces into politics.

Re:Why change what's working?

[Uberbah]

As for Trump, he acts very strange with Russia

Trying to keep the Putin Puppet storyline going in spite of the facts? Some of the diehards would keep repeating the puppet mantra if Trump had ICBM's in the air on their way to Moscow.

Plot holes or not, it's worth a thorough investigation.

As much as it was "worth it" to "thoroughly investigate" the possibility that Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in a newspaper because they knew he could be president some 45 years in advance. It's all the same deranged partisan butthurt for people to delegitimize a president they don't like instead of, you know, focusing on events in the real world. At least the Birthers weren't trying to drag the planet into WWIII, though.

Re:Why change what's working?

[mesterha]

Trying to keep the Putin Puppet storyline going in spite of the facts? Some of the diehards would keep repeating the puppet mantra if Trump had ICBM's in the air on their way to Moscow.

Agreed; we need to investigate to get the facts.

As much as it was "worth it" to "thoroughly investigate" the possibility that Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in a newspaper because they knew he could be president some 45 years in advance.

While I would like to see more evidence of Russia's involvement, I believe that some data needs to be classified. The fact that major Republicans have seen the classified evidence and are not fighting the investigation does give strong support. Also, unlike the Iraq war, we are making a minimal commitment based on this intelligence.

It's all the same deranged partisan butthurt for people to delegitimize a president they don't like instead of, you know, focusing on events in the real world. At least the Birthers weren't trying to drag the planet into WWIII, though.

Yes, many people are hopeful that this is a way to get rid of Trump, but I do think many/most Democrats don't see impeachment as the solution. They would prefer the ballet box to remove Trump. For that same reason, many of those same people do realize the importance of investigating this issue. Voting is fundamental to our democracy.

Re:Why change what's working?

[Uberbah]

As much as it was "worth it" to "thoroughly investigate" the possibility that Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in a newspaper because they knew he could be president some 45 years in advance.

While I would like to see more evidence of Russia's involvement, I believe that some data needs to be classified.

Why. Why would "FSB agent Romanov hacked voting machines in Michigan and Pennsylvania" or whatever need to remain classified. Not only is the USG applying sanctions to Russia based on a conspiracy theory, it has a Navy fleet deployed to the Black Sea, is arming literal neo-Nazis in Ukraine after overthrowing its government, and has artillery in range of Russia's second largest city. Why would you be OK with (mostly) unelected officials dragging you towards planetary annihilation without showing cause?

Also, unlike the Iraq war, we are making a minimal commitment based on this intelligence.

Yes, the Iraq war. Which blew the "just trust us" line all to hell, but you're willing to believe unsupported claims from the very same liars who got you into Iraq?

The fact that major Republicans have seen the classified evidence and are not fighting the investigation does give strong support.

Not when the subject is "never Trump Republicans", its not. The establishment of the Republican Party has no love for Trump as he's not one of them. If Jeb Bush had won the nomination and then the presidency, these same Republicans wouldn't GAF about the Chinese couple who gave his campaign $1.3 million, because the Bush's are the epitome of the GOP establishment.

Yes, many people are hopeful that this is a way to get rid of Trump, but I do think many/most Democrats don't see impeachment as the solution.

Then they'd be focused on beating Trump at the ballot box with something other than "we're not Trump", which they ran on two years ago to great results. But that's their only game plan, along with McCarthyite CT and talking impeachment, which would lead directly to President Pence, who would be far more of a danger to their base's interests than Trump ever was.

Re:Why change what's working?

[mesterha]

Why. Why would "FSB agent Romanov hacked voting machines in Michigan and Pennsylvania" or whatever need to remain classified.

I agree that the US over classifies for a range of reasons. However, it's not a strong statement to say that some things need to be classified. As for your example, much of this information has been released but often details are left out for the good reason of not exposing how the data was gathered. Otherwise we would lose a source of valuable future information. In fact, just releasing the information is a problem as the adversary will evaluate how the information was likely gathered.

Not only is the USG applying sanctions to Russia based on a conspiracy theory, it has a Navy fleet deployed to the Black Sea, is arming literal neo-Nazis in Ukraine after overthrowing its government, and has artillery in range of Russia's second largest city. Why would you be OK with (mostly) unelected officials dragging you towards planetary annihilation without showing cause?

Can you back any of this up with evidence? Looks like conspiracy theories which is confirmed by some simple Google searches.

Yes, the Iraq war. Which blew the "just trust us" line all to hell, but you're willing to believe unsupported claims from the very same liars who got you into Iraq?

Again, an investigation is not a big commitment. We should wait and then judge the evidence. With Iraq, we didn't properly evaluate the evidence for a range of reasons. However, it is a mistake to ignore the situation and not gather evidence.

Not when the subject is "never Trump Republicans", its not. The establishment of the Republican Party has no love for Trump as he's not one of them. If Jeb Bush had won the nomination and then the presidency, these same Republicans wouldn't GAF about the Chinese couple who gave his campaign $1.3 million, because the Bush's are the epitome of the GOP establishment.

These Republicans are generally getting what they want from Trump, but I do agree many that many of them would be fine if Trump lost his base and Pence took over. However, if they could stick it to the Democrats, they would. Again, the investigation is not a significant commitment and there is more than enough evidence to justify an investigation.

Then they'd be focused on beating Trump at the ballot box with something other than "we're not Trump", which they ran on two years ago to great results. But that's their only game plan, along with McCarthyite CT and talking impeachment, which would lead directly to President Pence, who would be far more of a danger to their base's interests than Trump ever was.

First, I was talking about voters not politicians. Second, I do see a large group of progressive vying for 2018 with a platform that focusing on many things besides Trump.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Topwiz]

The more illegal aliens a state has, the higher the chances are that they will get more representatives after the next census.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[virtualXTC]

Democrats believe it's possible given the huge margin that Trump lost the popular vote by. But the issue is less about the integrity of the presidential election vs up coming congressional elections which would be way easier to manipulate.

If the problem is ...

[WoodstockJeff]

... "outside influence", rather than election fraud, then fixing the voting machines is not addressing the problem.

According to many people who are fighting efforts to stop efforts like requiring picture ID to vote, there is no election fraud going on. So what is the $250M supposed to fix, other than contracts for people who sell insecure voting equipment?

Re:If the problem is ...

[virtualXTC]

The $250 million can cover cost of issuing IDs to voter but unable to afford the cost of filing for starters...

Re:If the problem is ...

[b0bby]

The summary says the money was supposed to be "to protect against hacking and other cyberattacks". So changing out machines which could have their results tampered with for ones which, for example, have a clear paper trail. My county did that this year - the old touch screens are gone, replaced by scannable paper which can be stored and audited if needed. My county is relatively affluent, so can afford to do this; it would be good to have it happen all over.

Lots of studies have found that there are vanishingly small amounts of in person voter fraud happening. The problem with some of the touch screen machines is, if there is fraud happening, it's very very hard to tell. And the fraud could be perpetrated by foreign adversaries. It's safer just to have a paper trail.

Re:If the problem is ...

[meglon]

That's not insightful, it's stupider than fuck. VOTER FRAUD is virtually non-existent, ELECTION TAMPERING is what we're talking about.

Re:If the problem is ...

[jeff4747]

According to many people who are fighting efforts to stop efforts like requiring picture ID to vote, there is no election fraud going on

Election fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud.

Voter fraud is when you go to the polls, claim you are someone else, and vote illegally. That happens so rarely as to have no effect. There were 4 proven cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election.

Election fraud is when the government or another entity changes the results of the election. That may or may not be happening. We have no data, because states routinely destroy the evidence as quickly as possible (shred ballots, wipe voting machines, etc). You'd think they'd want to carefully audit the results of every election, but they don't do that.

We need LESS money

[anthony_greer]

Slips of paper and human counters are pretty damn hard to hack - Since we cant seem to get open source hardware and software platforms for voting, the only option is slips of paper and manual counting.

Re:We need LESS money

[quantaman]

Slips of paper and human counters are pretty damn hard to hack - Since we cant seem to get open source hardware and software platforms for voting, the only option is slips of paper and manual counting.

Open source has nothing to do with having secure electronic voting machines.

Security is done by design and the licensing of the IP doesn't affect design.

You need a hard copy of the vote cast that the voter can see and verify. Any software-only solution is insecure.

Re:We need LESS money

[dhawton]

Not all voting machines do paper printing. Here's just one example: https://www.johnsoncitypress.c...

Re:We need LESS money

[Anonymous Coward]

Electronic voting is a waste of money.
We did it in my country for 2 elections.
Then audits showed how insecure it was. Moreover, electronic voting is fundamentally incompatible with auditable voting due to the requirement that a vote cannot be tied back to the vote caster.

Re:We need LESS money

[MattKeith]

I'm just going to drop this here for anyone interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We need a system that we trust, but can also verify. Cryptography seems like a great way to accomplish this feat.

Re:We need LESS money

[swillden]

Better link for the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:We need LESS money

[HornWumpus]

FYI.

Historical ways to 'hack' paper ballots:

Start with a box half full of votes for your girl.
Hold back a ballot box in the trunk of a campaign worker and deliver it only after you know exactly how many votes _you_ need.
Registration fraud.

The UN has a set of best practices. I suggest we adopt them, but that would be 'racist', (per the Ds).

Paper ballots.

Clear ballot boxes.

Voter registration and ID.

Finger marking with indelible ink.

Public counting, with all interested parties able to watch.

Re:We need LESS money

[swillden]

Er, actually this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (a newer version, tested in actual public elections).

Re:We need LESS money

[currently_awake]

It's trivially easy to get secure voting machines: Just build secure voting machines and sell them below cost so you're always the lowest bidder. Secure electronic voting is still a bad idea though, because it undermines democracy when the voters don't understand and trust the voting system.

Re:We need LESS money

[Uberbah]

but that would be 'racist', (per the Ds)

Per the facts. In person vote fraud is so rare as to be functionally non-existent, which means you don't want those people to be voting.

Start with a box half full of votes for your girl.

Not going to help when ballots are only counted at the polling place after they've been cast.

Re:We need LESS money

[HornWumpus]

The fact is that many states have made it illegal to even look for vote fraud.

Recounts have been stopped because they _found_ clear evidence of vote fraud. Detroit, last election.

Re:We need LESS money

[Uberbah]

Oooo, slight of hand. Substituting election fraud (which wingnuts DGAF about) for in-person vote fraud, in the same way you like to hold up examples of registration fraud, which has noting to do with actually casting votes.

If you guys cared about election, you'd be demanding paper trails, not voter ID.

Re:We need LESS money

[HornWumpus]

What's the point? Last election they went to recount a district in Detroit.

Found less than 1/4 of the votes they had reported, quickly stopped recounting and tried to hush it up.

Guess who all those votes were for...

Re:We need LESS money

[Uberbah]

So you bring up an example of possible election fraud that has nothing to do with voter ID? Thanks for proving both my points.

Help me out with the narrative

[Okian Warrior]

The Republicans are very happy with the situation now. Easy for Vlad to help out keeping them in power. Why risk upsetting the gravy train?

I thought that no voting machines were hacked, and no vote tallys were changed. Is that no longer true?

I'm having trouble keeping up with the narrative here.

Can you help me out? Do you have a link to a recent article or something?

Re:Help me out with the narrative

[Tablizer]

I thought that no voting machines were hacked, and no vote tallies were changed. Is that no longer true?

That's a classic PHB viewpoint: "We haven't got hacked yet, so why spend resources on security safeguards?"

We know other countries were trying. Just because they were not successful (that we know of*) is NOT a reason to not guard against future attacks.

GOP, you should be spanked for shortsighted thinking. (Don't even get me started about debt hypocrisy.)

* To some extent they were successful.

Re:Help me out with the narrative

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that no voting machines were hacked, and no vote tallys were changed. Is that no longer true?

That has never been true.

All that has ever been said is that they have not found proof, not that they have disproved anything. Much of that is because the states responsible have not even been looking for proof.

Furthermore, there is tons of circumstantial evidence to indicate that there was vote tampering. For example in 2015, russians secretly bought the company handling Maryland's voting machines. We also know, because they were caught at the last minute, that the russians tried to change votes on Ukranian voting machines in 2014.

So, even if the russians have not yet successfully altered votes, it is not for a lack of trying.

Also, fuck off you shitstain antipatriot. I've read your post history, its clear you would be happier living in russia so just fucking move already and leave our country to real americans.

Re:Help me out with the narrative

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need to know is that we've always been at war with Eastasia.

What a bizzaro quote to use.

(1) Orwell was all about the evils of fascists like okian - he took a bullet from one of okian's fellow travelers.
(2) That quote refers to state media retcon'ing history, none of these events involves rewriting history, it is about revealing more information as investigators dig deeper and deeper into the conspiracy to defraud the american people.

Re:Help me out with the narrative

[meglon]

The first classic blunder. Where's a Sicilian when you need one.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[JackieBrown]

Democrats believe it's possible given the huge margin that Trump lost the popular vote by

So democrats think that the electoral college was created by the Russians?

Re:posr fsirt

[virtualXTC]

I can't figure out if you are playing dumb or actually dumb.

If you were running a nation state hacking the US election and want the person you put in power to stay in power you:

Attempt to hack and change millions of votes so your unpopular person can win a 'majority vote'?
Or
Use the existing loopholes to get him into power with only minor vote tampering (thousands of votes)?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Plus1Entropy]

Liberal here. Willing to agree to voter ID laws under 3 conditions:

1. Election days are national holidays.
2. Same day registration everywhere.
3. The ID is 100% free.

None of these compromise the security you are looking for. However, no conservative will agree because they do prevent actual voters from being disenfranchised, which is actually what they want.

Prove me wrong.

Oh really, what about VoterID?

[SuperKendall]

You claim this is a partisan issue yet you sit uncomfortably and stare off in the distance any time someone wants to institute any kind of real voter ID (you know, the kind everywhere in Europe does already)....

Why pay to update failing electronic systems?

Re:Oh really, what about VoterID?

[meglon]

Again, you'd have to be a fucking idiot to equate the two. The Heritage Foundation has a list of voter fraud cases, and for cases where an ID would make a difference (Impersonating fraud at the polls) it lists 13 going back to 2004.

You don't want an ID system, you want a poll tax. You make it so it's free, and the STATE is required to put in the effort to make sure EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the state has one EVERY ELECTION.... i'd vote for that. But, you a poll tax.

Re:Oh really, what about VoterID?

[_Sharp'r_]

I'm pretty sure every State which requires ID already has either a free ID or an alternate method for having your vote counted (usually a provisional ballot or an affidavit).

But feel free to verify that for yourself.

Re:Oh really, what about VoterID?

[Uberbah]

They're only free if your time is worthless. And "free" goes out the window as well if you don't have "proper" documentation. Don't have an existing ID, passport or a copy of your birth certificate? Get ready to spend some time and money to get one.

And ID's are a red herring in the end anyway, as in-person vote fraud is so rare it functionally doesn't exist.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

I'm with you on #1 and #3 but it's too time-consuming and expensive to verify same-day registrations. Why not just register to vote when getting your free ID?

Paper & States Rights [Re:We need LESS money]

[Tablizer]

Regarding going back to paper ballots, the current interpretation of the Constitution is that each state can implement the mechanics of voting as they see fit. It would be difficult to dictate paper ballots on a Federal level.

Re:Thanks a lot Putin.

[Train0987]

The Russians have never hacked an election.

Paper can be "hacked"

[Comboman]

Paper ballots can be "hacked" too. Remember the 2000 election with butteryfly ballots and hanging chads and cancelled recounts all ultimately decided by a Republican-controlled supreme court? The sad truth is that Democrats have to win by a wide margin because the Republicans will always find a way to "hack" any election that is close.

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[Comboman]

Have you ever even looked at the butterfly ballots? The names do not line up with the spots you have to punch to vote for that person (except for Bush). Even Pat Buchanan himself admitted that the votes he received in West Palm Beach were illegitimate.

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[Train0987]

Bullshit. See those big arrows pointing to the hole they're supposed to punch out: https://www.historyonthenet.co...

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[Train0987]

No, Democrats make up the stupidest excuses to accuse Republicans of stealing elections when they can't accept defeat.

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, you have a few things mixed up here. The Reps are the party of stupid.

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[Uberbah]

I didn't vote for Bush, mind you. But he did win.

Not a majority of the votes in the state of Florida, he didn't. Press analysis of the votes showed Gore would have won a statewide recount under any scenario.

Facts.

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[skam240]

I voted for Gore and all but Bush winning that election did not even resemble a "hack". It all went by the books and Gore came up short in Florida.

Re:Paper can be "hacked"

[TFlan91]

Paper ballots designed to be "hacked", sure. Pass a federal level standard for sensible ballot layouts, not content as to appease States Rights people, just layouts and the design/rules of checking boxes. Give the FEC power to enforce these standards.

Politics and their games can happen to machine voting too.

Design the system with this in mind to prevent it from happening. Something the Constitution has, arguably until recently, excelled at.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only "upgrade" needed is to go to paper ballots counted by teams of humans!

Re:posr fsirt

[dhawton]

I'm only happy that Trump won because it means Hillary didn't... but I'm equally unhappy with a Trump presidency. The two parties no longer represent the people of this countries or the values this nation was founded on... but fucking retards think there are only two candidates they can vote for... so they keep voting for the lesser evil hoping to break this cycle of shit.

Re:fuc4Er

[Scarletdown]

Hey, retard! Guess what?

I don't know if you noticed or not, but all links here show the destination in square brackets next to the link.

Are you too fucking stupid to understand that everyone already knows that is a goatse shot without clicking on it?

I swear, these trolls on Slashdot get stupider by the minute.

Re:posr fsirt

[cyberchondriac]

It's called the electoral college, it's pretty ironic that you call out someone else for being dumb. It's how it's always been done, for good reason, and it's not a "loophole". If you can't understand that we are the United STATES of America, and not just "America", as in, one huge monolithic overbearing federal government, then the whole concept of the country is lost on you.
Furthermore, they weren't looking to back any one candidate: Mueller's info shows that the Russians that were indicted were essentially trying to create division and paranoia among the voting public, and thanks to people like you they've been wildly successful. Remember they also put out ANTI-trump ads, and pro BERNIE ads as well. And lest we forget, the DNC did their part to push Trump as a republican nominee.
http://observer.com/2016/10/wi...

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[FictionPimp]

Do you have to believe the election was stolen to want to secure it? It seems both sides agree our elections are in jeopardy and nobody wants to do anything about it.

What is wrong with doubling down on securing our election tools? We have ample proof that outside parties want to manipulate our elections. If they have or have not does not matter, we need to take steps to ensure that our elections are secure and safe. They are literally the most important part of our country. If they are compromised the US is compromised.

I could give a fuck who is president, but I want to know for sure that idiot (be it democrat, republican, or reptilian) was elected properly and without interference from outside parties.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dhawton]

Not in my state they don't... you get one from the state at cost to the taxpayers upon registering to vote.. and you take it with you to the polls. Even when the talk includes the cost being paid for by the state, the average Democrat labels it as racist. You need ID to buy cars, cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc. and it's not racist.. but it's racist to require one to vote?

Re:posr fsirt

[FictionPimp]

I have Hillary and I did not vote for her. I think she was a terrible choice for president. I have seen no evidence of your claims. So if you are going to make claims like that you are going to need to provide real, audit-able, substantial proof. Otherwise I'm just going to believe you are talking out your ass.

Re:posr fsirt

[FictionPimp]

"I hate Hillary" is what I was trying to write. I take full responsibility for not proof reading.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[FictionPimp]

I will correct this for you as someone who is not a liberal nor a conservative.

1. Election days are national holidays.
2. The ID is 100% free
3. Getting the ID is registration to vote.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[msauve]

Trump didn't "lose the popular vote." All the popular votes went to electors. Trump won the only vote held for President, where he won a wide majority of the votes.

This stuff is taught in grade school (or used to be). Where were you?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bluefoxlucid]

That third one is a huge sticking point. People have to invest time, money, and effort into getting an ID--especially when they don't have documentation (homeless people don't carry an archive of their birth certificates and whatnot, so it's hard to prove who you are). Issuing an ID is constrained by certain rules, and it can be kind of rough to get one even when you know who you are and you're supposed to have one.

Election holidays are meaningless. My employer gives us four days off each year. There are about two-dozen national holidays. What you do, you make people work holidays you think are bullshit--Columbus Day, MLK's Birthday, etc. aren't holidays at my employer because they only care about Veteran's Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day. What makes you think they'd give anyone off for Voting Day?

Why is this a federal responsibility?

[schwit1]

Elections are managed by the states.

Not everything is the Federal government's job to fix or manage. God knows they've screwed up enough things already.

Re:Why is this a federal responsibility?

[Tablizer]

Elections are mismanaged by the states.

Fixed that for ya. State politics can be just as screwy as national, sometimes more so. For example, if a state is say 70% a given party, the majority party often will play games to strengthen their power-hold over the minority party in the state.

Re:Why is this a federal responsibility?

[davide marney]

Exactly. The federal government can't be in charge of securing the election for itself. Classic conflict of interest.

Federalism works.

Re:Why is this a federal responsibility?

[jeff4747]

Exactly. The federal government can't be in charge of securing the election for itself. Classic conflict of interest.

And there's no conflict for the state being in charge of securing the election for itself? Elections are not only for federal offices.

Did you forget to think this argument through?

Re:Why is this a federal responsibility?

[skam240]

"Elections are managed by the states."

And would have continued to have been so if this funding had gone through.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Dragonslicer]

The true cost isn't the dollars, it's the time required to obtain an ID card. When the nearest office is 2 hours away, and your boss will fire you if you take an entire day off from work to go there, it becomes pretty much impossible. Statistically, minorities are more likely to be in that situation, but it's really just as much an attempt to discriminate against the poorer working population as it is racial discrimination.

Re: Do they really believe what they are saying

[sexconker]

Hillary was running victory laps in California, while trump was focusing on states not people.

More like victory lapse.

No surprise

[Locke2005]

Those benefiting from election fraud would of course be opposed to eliminating election fraud.

Re:No surprise

[_Sharp'r_]

So, let's say in some alternate universe the Republicans had already approved spending $380 million a few months ago on these exact same State election security block grants. That'd completely change your view right?

Well, if you read the article instead of just the /. summary, that's the universe we're living in....

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

Oh please! How does one function in life without an ID period? Do you know anyone who is eligible for a US ID that doesn't have one or can't find a way to get one? What are we talking about, .0000001% of the population (if that)? No social services that I'm aware of are available to anyone who cannot produce an ID.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Dragonslicer]

I would expand item 3 to be 100% dollar-free and 99% time-free. In many parts of the US, lower-class workers can't afford to take the full day off from work that they would need in order to go to a state office and get the ID. I have one friend from Germany who couldn't understand why anyone would be opposed to requiring ID to vote, but that was because he also didn't understand why it was difficult to get a ID.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Dragonslicer]

Same-day registration usually makes your ballot provisional, so if the vote difference is greater than the number of provisional ballots (which it almost always is), they won't bother verifying it until after the election anyway.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[sexconker]

Liberal here. Willing to agree to voter ID laws under 3 conditions:

1. Election days are national holidays.
2. Same day registration everywhere.
3. The ID is 100% free.

None of these compromise the security you are looking for. However, no conservative will agree because they do prevent actual voters from being disenfranchised, which is actually what they want.

Prove me wrong.

I don't think #1 is necessary. Not when you can easily vote by mail.
#2 would be chaos. The better approach is to cast a provisional ballot and then clear up your shit later if you care.
#3 I agree. It should be free or cost a nominal fee that can be waived in certain cases.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The more illegal aliens a state has, the higher the chances are that they will get more representatives after the next census.

The sun will also come up tomorrow. So what's your point?

For those who don't know, the US Constitution is silent on whether illegal aliens count in a census or not, mainly because when the document was written, there was no such thing as an illegal alien. You got on a ship, you came to the USA, they let you in. I'm not a lawyer so I can't cite specific cases, but basically the law is interpreted that you just count bodies in the census and you don't put people into groups of legal or illegal to determine how representatives are spread out in the US House of Representatives. And for those who don't know about that, the number of representatives is fixed at 435 and basically the more people you have living in your state, the more representatives you have for your state. No state can by law have fewer than 1 representative. California, the most populous state at present, currently has 53 representatives. Rhode Island and Vermont have 1 each. There may be a few more states with only one like maybe Wyoming and possibly one or both of the Dakotas.

Moot

[Tablizer]

Do mainstream Democrats actually believe that the election was somehow stolen from them

That's mostly a moot question: other nations tried, and we should not give them a shot at changing the outcome in the future either way. Many Presidential elections have been close.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, I've met several. In my city, around 5% of the population and 6% of the voting-age population haven't got ID and don't have the cash or time to get one. That's only the ones I can roughly count, and doesn't count things like adults who never got an ID in the first place because they didn't drive and their parents didn't keep records. The same thing happens with many elderly who no longer drive: they lose their social security cards, and have to pay $125 to get a copy of their birth certificates and have licenses printed up and all--often these people are on a fixed income.

You can get SNAP and other welfare by uh...using your voter registration card as an ID. Seriously. You can use just about anything--a school ID, an ID badge from a job, proof that you're receiving or have received some other form of welfare...

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Darinbob]

There was attempts to influence the elections. It probably had no effect on the outcome. However, neither should it be treated as if it's perfectly ordinary. Russia was involved in trying to influence the election and that can't be allowed to just be glossed over. And this most certainly was not the peak of their capabilities and they've not lost the means and motivation. In fact, the bigger scandal is not the Russian interference itself but the attempt to cover it up and deny it.

So true, some Democrats may be blowing it out of proportion, but also too many Republicans are just trying to shut the whole investigation down and pretend nothing happened.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

Provisional balloting procedures already exists. The post I was replying to appears to be demanding something entirely different.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

In your city 1 in 20 adults do not have an ID? That just isn't believable.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Green Mountain Bot]

The vast majority of states don't have mail-in voting, so #1 seems necessary in most of the country.

We have #2 in my state. It's not chaotic in the least. No provisional ballots are necessary. You just show the documentation, they look it over and verify you're in the correct precinct, add your name to the rolls, and give you a ballot.

Paper ballots?

[Hadlock]

I don't see why we ever moved away from paper ballots? They are cheap, easily counted, and by definition create a reliable paper trail.

Re:Paper ballots?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why we ever moved away from paper ballots? They are cheap, easily counted, and by definition create a reliable paper trail.

You just listed several of the primary reasons the US moved away from paper ballots.

Re:Paper ballots?

[Rhipf]

Another reason is the instant gratification Americans need for their election results. It takes time to count paper ballots so it isn't as easy to declare a winner the same day.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Darinbob]

There aren't wild explanations. No one is seriously claiming that the Russians "stole" the election, except some stupid voters who don't know how to reason (and we have plenty of those types of voters on both sides).

The real problem however is him trying to hinder the investigation. This is going to hurt him far more than if he just admitted that the Russians indeed tried to influence the election. He's only doing this because he wants everyone to believe he's the most popular guy ever, that he had the largest inaugural day ever, that he won by a huuuge margin, etc. He's embarrassed that by focusing on the Russian scandal that some people might think he isn't as popular as he claims. His denial is all ego based.

Re:Thanks a lot Putin.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol and your mom's not a whore

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[CanHasDIY]

Liberal here. Willing to agree to voter ID laws under 3 conditions:

1. Election days are national holidays.
2. Same day registration everywhere.
3. The ID is 100% free.

None of these compromise the security you are looking for. However, no conservative will agree because they do prevent actual voters from being disenfranchised, which is actually what they want.

Prove me wrong.

I'm a conservative in the Libertarian sense, and I think that's exactly how federal elections should function. Sure beats spending millions of dollars on useless "security" programs that do nothing but line someone's pockets with tax dollars.

Congrats, you've been proven wrong.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[meglon]

Still trying to make yourself feel better about more people voting for Hillary, i see. People like you need to open your eyes to what's really happening in the world... your fake facts and living in fantasy land are causing a shitstorm.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[meglon]

It seems both sides agree our elections are in jeopardy and nobody wants to do anything about it.

Some people do, just not republicans it seems.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

The boss is already breaking the law by employing someone without verifying they are legally eligible to be working and filing the proper tax documents. You know, by checking their ID.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

How are they legally employed in the first place without having an ID?

(they aren't)

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

Absentee ballots exist in every state. That's "mail-in voting"

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[meglon]

Funny how fucking stupid you are, but not in a HA HA kinda way. Do you have anything other than paranoid alt-right talking points to regurgitate, or have you just had your head up your ass for so long you have nothing more than shit left in that place that used to have a brain (i assume).

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[meglon]

Exactly. Republicans don't want ID's, they want a poll tax.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bluefoxlucid]

It's common in places where adults might end up unable to eat or pay rent if they lose $20 and IDs cost some $40 to get. Your parent aren't taking you to the MVA and they're sure as hell not getting you an ID for things they can't afford, like cars or college. 60% of the households in my neighborhood don't have cars.

You often see breakdowns that claim something like 13% of blacks, 10% of hispanics, and 5% of whites in America lack a government ID. Household incomes show no confirmed ID for 12% of those under $25k, 10% in the $30k-$35k range, 9% in the $40k-$50k range, and 2% in the $125k-$150k range. Given the statistics, it's kind of difficult to work out math that would suggest fewer than 1 in 20 American adults lack government ID.

It's also particularly high among the 17-20 and 21-24 age groups (by the by, 17-year-olds who will be 18 on the day of the corresponding general election can vote in a primary election), yet remains in the 5%-7% range for most older age groups.

The issue is largely a statistical one: specific demographics (age, race, income) are over-represented in the no-government-ID distribution, which gives uneven voting power to identifiable subgroups. Such an uneven distribution makes voting non-representative. We can't do much about voluntary voting behavior (lack of desire to vote), but we are responsible for involuntary voting behavior (coercion, disenfranchisement).

If you're thinking the real problem is whatever prohibits these people from obtaining an ID, you're right! This problem causes the others, and one solution is precluded by the other problem. Then comes another question: how do we pay for IDs that poor people get if the poor people don't pay the $85 at the MVA? What about the extra $75 or $150 for people who don't have proper identification papers and need their identities confirmed first? How do you identify a person who doesn't have ID, anyway? Are you sure you're giving that Photo ID to the person whom they claim they are?

This is why elections generally use local polling places, volunteer staff, and public attention: your neighbors should probably recognize you, or recognize that somebody else is using your name. We rely on the neighborhood to confirm your identity.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[JackieBrown]

Isn't Hillary during the debates the one that said it dangerous to question the integrity of the election? She said that even suggesting the election could be rigged or hacked was dangerous to the country. And she looked like she believed it and wasn't just lying. Then she lost and we saw that belief was just another Clinton lie.

This was meaningless

[oldgraybeard]

250 million? Who was going to get the money? What was the money going to be used for? Just that fact that one side supported it 100% and the other was against it 100% means it was just fodder for ideological hacks to use to attack their opponents.
As for the US Senate, with out 60 votes almost nothing passes in the Senate. To say the Republicans control all 3 branches of government means nothing. And is just political misdirection used for propaganda reasons since most Americans are ignorant about how the Senate works.
If the party in power does not control 60 votes in the Senate very little gets done in Washington.
The last time that happened President Obama was in office and the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and controlled the House. And they for the most part completely wasted the power and oppotunities they held for 18 Months (I think it was 18 months?)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:This was meaningless

[Rhipf]

The Democrats only had total control of the Senate for 4 months (from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010). There were times that they had control in theory but due to Teddy Kennedy's illness and dying they didn't have the actual sitting votes for the 60 needed for full control (and Al Franken's contested seat didn't help either).

Re:This was meaningless

[oldgraybeard]

Thanks for the additional info

Re:Thanks a lot Putin.

[meglon]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/w...

Re:DNC Rigs elections, not Russia

[Dru Nemeton]

Hi Coward, it's me a concerned DNC supporter!

I've been quite concerned that they apparently robbed Bernie of his chance at the 2016 election. I've been quite vocal about it in fact...

Glad we could clear that up. So you can stop calling BS and start actually replying to forum comments in a constructive and hopefully insightful manner.

Good Day Coward!

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bobbied]

The only "upgrade" needed is to go to paper ballots counted by teams of humans!

Oh great.. Back to "hanging chads" in Florida again? Please no...

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[JackieBrown]

Most states require the employer to give their employee time off to vote if voting is only done during the employee's shift.

https://aflcio.org/2016/11/5/k...

That said, with the ease of early voting, having voting day a national holiday is not really needed

Re:Thanks a lot Putin.

[bobbied]

Well I don't know about their mom, but they are right about the Russians hacking.

The Russians have never hacked a national election in the USA, as in changed the outcome by adjusting the vote totals to not match the votes cast.

However, they HAVE been fairly successful at spreading FUD about such non-events though messing with news coverage and manipulation of "useful idiots" though stupid assertions like the idea they managed to do so..

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Dragonslicer]

No, most states don't allow same-day registration at all. It doesn't appear to be a partisan issue, either, since it's pretty much a 50-50 split for states that allow it. Map here.

Re:posr fsirt

[jeff4747]

If you can't understand that we are the United STATES of America, and not just "America", as in, one huge monolithic overbearing federal government, then the whole concept of the country is lost on you.

You appear to be trying to invoke the need for small states to balance their power against large states. Small states gain their power through overrepresentation in the Senate, not the Electoral College.

Wyoming got 3 electoral college votes instead of the roughly 1 they should have gotten based only on population. California got 55 votes. 3 does not cancel 55, especially when both states got exactly the same number of votes from their senators.

Much more to the point, neither Wyoming nor California were relevant in the 2016 election, just like the vast majority of states are not relevant. In 2016 they were going to vote for one party, regardless of the candidate. This demonstrates the problem with the Electoral College and the "United STATES of America" - only 5 states matter. The remaining 45 have no effect on the election, thanks to the structure of the Electoral College. That's a big problem if you're arguing for a confederation of states as opposed to direct democracy.

You're not gonna get that either

[rsilvergun]

wasn't there a line about the best way to win elections to be the one that counts the votes.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[msauve]

Sorry that things are working exactly as intended, which means "you" lost. Presidential elections were never meant to reflect a popular vote - states don't even have to use a popular vote to chose electors.

And, the number of electors is equal to a state's representatives and senators. Every state, of course, gets 2 senators regardless of population. If you passed grade school math, you'll be able to figure out how it makes no difference by how large a margin Clinton's electors received votes in CA or NY or IL, the vote for president wouldn't change a bit. That's exactly by design, to prevent a tyranny of a few large states.

If you think it should be based on a popular vote, change the Constitution. Pissing and moaning when you lost according to the well known and established rules is just being a poor loser. Get over it. You lost, fair and square. Oh, and consider that there's also a good argument that each state should have an equal say in presidential elections - it is a Federal government of states.

Finally, you do realize that Hillary's electors didn't get a majority of the popular vote, either. So, more people voted against her than for her.

A large part of the misinformation campagin

[rsilvergun]

was stuff like telling voters they couldn't vote or had to vote on a Wednesday or any one of a number of common voter suppression techniques that work great during a close election. The $250 would go to counter that misinformation campaign and help states get out the vote.

Of course the people who voted this down don't want that because they don't want the 'wrong' people voting.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

Not in my state they don't... you get one from the state at cost to the taxpayers upon registering to vote

Does your state pay the cost of getting all the supporting documentation for that ID? 'Cause a new certified copy of my birth certificate costs $50. Or I can pick one up for free if I travel the 2000 miles to the county where I was born.

Even though I can personally afford that, it took me 9 attempts to get a drivers license when I moved to NY. RealID had been "implemented", but they were still fucking around with what supporting documentation you had to supply, so the rules kept changing each time I attempted to get one. I suspect there was a bit of discrimination involved due to the glee the DMV worker showed crossing off the "Motor-Voter" section of the form where I was registering to vote at the same time.

Anyway, the reason voter ID laws are racist are twofold.
First and primarily, the people who can't afford cost for the ID and the supporting documentation tend to be minorities.

Second, the places where you can obtain the necessary ID tend to do things that restrict the ability for the poor and minorities to get them. For example, only open during limited hours, not located near public transit, placed in the "white" part of town, and so on.

Third, the selection of IDs in most voter ID laws include IDs more commonly obtained by whites and explicitly exclude IDs more commonly obtained by non-whites. For example, Texas allows hunting licenses to act as voter ID (mostly whites), and forbids IDs from state universities (mixed races, but very common only ID for a non-driving minority).

You need ID to buy cars, cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc. and it's not racist

See the comments above about the selection of valid IDs. There's lots of IDs that count in those situations (ex. student ID) that do not count under voter ID laws.

Also, you have no fundamental right to driving a car on public roads, nor a fundamental right to purchasing cigarettes, or alcohol. Also guns can be bought without ID, you just have fewer places that will sell a gun without ID.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

When you pass the law requiring IDs, have a section making it illegal to punish anyone for going to get one.

This is hilarious if you think this would work.

If this passed, the official reason for your firing would be "bad attitude" or "poor attendance". Wanna fight it? What makes you think someone who couldn't afford to take time off to get an ID can afford a lawyer?

Beyond that, seriously, I mean, I've needed to provide a state ID to get every job I've ever had

The I-9 form accepts a lot more IDs than voter ID laws do.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

The I-9 form accepts a lot of things that are not accepted as voter ID.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

Not all states allow you to vote absentee without a reason.

Re: As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dfenstrate]

1) IDs are free- sure.
2) National holidays- not really necessary. People working 12 hour shifts, who have the hardest time getting to the polls, will still be working those 12 hour shifts on holidays. That's how shift work works.
3) same day registration- nah. And since we're casting aspersions here, the only reason you want it is so people can vote multiple times in the same day, in multiple states, and there's no time to validate their eligibility to vote.

As long as we're on the subject, black folks know how to get IDs just fine, thank you.

What else is in the bill?

[Stan92057]

I laugh at article like this because we all know dems/repubs poison bills with other garbage. Its not just a security bill it probably contains money for fart machines if ya get my point. so the dems say the repubs don't care about your security or the repubs say the dems dont care about your security for a bill they poison. FN circle jerk in Washington SSDD.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

Just have the ballots from #2 be provisional. They won't get counted in most elections (they aren't counted if there are fewer provisional ballots than the spread between the winner and second-place). If the provisional ballots matter, they are vetted before being counted. And they'll be a registered voter for the next election.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

1. Election days are national holiday

A suggestion to improve this:
- Elections are on a Saturday and Sunday.
- Employers are required to give their employees at least one of those days off.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[barc0001]

> I'm with you on #1 and #3 but it's too time-consuming and expensive to verify same-day registrations

Why? In Canada we do it all the time and nobody has a problem with it:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=vote&document=index&lang=e&section=vot

"To vote on election day: You must be registered to vote; if you aren't, you can register now, or register at your polling place, just before you vote."

Then again we also have a nonpartisan organization whose whole point of existence is running elections efficiently in a practical manner with integrity.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[tbannist]

Indeed. What a tragedy it would be if the candidate who got the most votes won the election...

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[tbannist]

To be fair, they got 50 votes. So there a couple of Republicans who want to do something about it. Just not enough of them to actually matter.

Um

[Alypius]

So let's see...Congress doesn't recycle money back to the states to prevent fraud and the progressives say that's how we get Trump. States try to enact voter ID laws to prevent fraud and the progressives say it's a dog-whistle that doesn't exist. Weird.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

Same-day voter registration and provisional balloting are two entirely different things. Every state has provisional ballot policies. How hard is it to register to vote before the deadline? Are deadlines racist now too?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Train0987]

Canada also requires ID to register and has much stricter immigration controls to ensure non-citizens aren't voting.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[clovis]

BlueFoxLucid has a good point
Although one in 20 may seem like a stretch for the whole country, but I would not be surprised that some localities have that many. In any case, I'm sure that the USA has a significant number of people who don't have a government ID and cannot easily get one.
And the point is that in a country where we keep having local elections decided with 49%-51% of the vote or even closer, the number of people who could not vote because a government ID would be required is more than enough to decide that election.

And there's that a huge number of women, especially older ones, in the USA have never had a job or owned a car and thus don't need a government ID.
Something like 40% of females don't have a job, and a large number have never held a job, especially among early baby boomers.

As for lost ID, I once got robbed when I was young and unemployed. I happened to have my draft card, birth certificate, driver's license, and everything else on me, and it all got stolen. I had to get money from a friend so I could go back to my hometown to get my birth certificate, which was required at that place and time. To get a replacement at the state archives required a drivers license, and to get a replacement DL required, guess what?
It took days to get everything restored, and many people would have given up. I was lucky to not have a job and to have available parents who could fund me.

You know who else has a huge problem with proving their identities? Women who have been married, divorced and remarried. Those records are required for restoring identity and in most places can only be found in the court of the locality that granted the marriage and divorce. In these modern times, that may require traveling to multiple states. And if the local courthouse had lost the records, or burnt down, you basically have to hire a lawyer to intervene for you.

Also, it's a huge pain for children born abroad of a Dad who was in the Army and married a foreigner. Or didn't marry her but just got her back to the USA somehow with the kid.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[HornWumpus]

The most popular name for the new Mountain Dew flavor is 'Hitler did nothing wrong'?

You don't understand a thing about online polls.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[HornWumpus]

Fix that, it's clearly not working.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[barc0001]

Yes, and somehow neither of those causes any significant heartburn during voting, but for some reason the US loses their minds at the mere thought of it. We also still use paper ballots and have our counts out nationally within a couple of hours after polls close. This isn't a hard thing to do, but for some reason the US makes it seem like it's a moonshot each time. Perhaps certain parties benefit from the current status quo enough that they don't want to risk change?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[virtualXTC]

Please don't parrot political talking points that don't make any sense. It hurts our side of the argument. You are either out of work and can afford the time to get an ID, or you are working and were IDs when you gave your tax information.

Voter purging of those still paying taxes (obviously not dead) and the cost of IDs are the moral high ground, and your help here would be better appreciated.

The answer is simple.

[Timex]

Enact VoterID.

We already need identification for all sorts of things in society: buying alcohol, tobacco, registering a car, getting a job... Proving who you are to vote is not difficult at all.

In a growing number of states, Real ID standards are mandated. Without a RealID-compliant license, for example, one cannot do something as routine as getting through airport security.

For certain political parties to claim it is "racist" to require ID to vote because certain minorities cannot get an ID is, in itself, racist.

The problems VoterID would solve would far surpass the crap ideas floated by the Democrats in the Senate.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[currently_awake]

If you eliminate the Electoral Collage and just add up the votes nation wide (popular vote wins), that would be democracy, right?

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[dryeo]

One weird thing about America is how the House of of Representatives is not representative. With what, the number of Representatives frozen for close to a hundred years at 535. These are supposed to go up as the population increases along with the number of electors.

What is the point?

[OYAHHH]

If you are just going to allow illegals to vote anyway. Stupid is as stupid does.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Highdude702]

see parent post. not what the founders were after, or they would have done that.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Highdude702]

For fucks sake, He became The President of the United States. I would have a pretty god damn big ego too.. im just sayin..

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Highdude702]

comedic gold

Re:posr fsirt

[Highdude702]

yea. that unfortunately is about proportionate to the amount of people that give a fuck.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[msauve]

Yes, but the US is a republic.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[msauve]

The apportionment is directly related to population. What's your claim that it's not representative based on?

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Darinbob]

There's the ego that says "I better do a damn good job now because everyone's watching", and the ego that says "I don't need to listen to anyone because I'm the smartest effing president that ever lived!"

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dryeo]

Not really. To get a job, you just need good enough ID to prove that you're legally employable. To vote, that ID has to exactly match the voters role.
For example, here under the last government, which was advised by the Republicans, they made the voting ID requirements very strict. My wife, whose ID is in her maiden name and has always voted under her maiden name, checked online that she was correctly registered (the government also got rid of the local registration lists so the only way to check was online) and as of the day before the election, she was correctly registered. On voting day, she was suddenly registered under my last name, and since she didn't have ID under that name.
My son was dis-enfranchised even easier. It was just too hard to update his ID, what with the 50 mile trip during working hours and the $75 fee.
Both have plenty of ID to get a job.
It's really easy to dis-enfranchise people if that is the aim of ID laws. Besides the above examples, there's just the simple typo on the voters registration. John A. Smith is actually registered as Johnn A. Smith.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dryeo]

Yet it is so easy to make a typo on the voters list so the ID doesn't quite match.

Re:posr fsirt

[dhawton]

Not accurate... the electoral college keeps all states relevant. If a candidate focuses their attention on LA, SF, Chicago, and NY they won't win an electoral vote election.... but a popular vote election is a completely different story. The Electoral College was designed to keep all states relevant.. and predates the concept of political parties. Electoral college doesn't keep the Republican and Democratic Parties relevant, the parties themselves manipulate law keeping any other voice out.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dryeo]

Last Federal election, my wives registered name mysteriously changed from her maiden name, which her ID is in, to my name. Government web site said she was registered in the name she has always used to vote, voters list at the polling station had her under my name.
ID laws are good until a government comes in that wants to use them to screw certain people, such as my wife who is native.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dryeo]

You still have the problem of intentional typos on the voters list, along with the requirement that the ID exactly match.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Jesus H Rolle]

Yes, but the US is a republic.

WTF does that even mean? Of course the US is a republic. It's also a democracy. These are hardly polar opposites. A republic is run by and for the people, not the monarch/church/military. Democracy's a natural fit. What you probably meant was "Yes, but the US is an indirect democracy."

MAGA = Moscow Agent Governing America

[Tablizer]

MAGA = Moscow Agent Governing America

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Uberbah]

In your city 1 in 20 adults do not have an ID? That just isn't believable.

If you don't drive, drink or smoke, what reason would you have for keeping your driver's license current?

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[dryeo]

Well, Wyoming's district has 570.000 while Montana's has over a million as one example, though it is not as bad as I first thought.
The other thing is that the number of people in the average district has gone from under 35,000 to close to 710, 000 which makes it hard to represent the people. One fix would be to pass Article the First, just like Article the Second finally passed as the 27th Amendment after close to 200 years.
There's also the argument whether electors representing their districts or the whole State is better. Me, I'd think districts, but that is mostly opinion based on the idea that a Representative Republic should represent the people.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Uberbah]

Please don't parrot political talking points that don't make any sense. It hurts our side of the argument.

What doesn't make sense? That some states have cut down on the number of DMV offices so getting an ID can require travel, particularly for those in rural areas?

You are either out of work and can afford the time to get an ID, or you are working and were IDs when you gave your tax information.

Unless you don't have a copy of your birth certificate on hand, in which case you will be out time and money to get one, just so you can get a "free" ID. To address a problem that is so rare it may as well not exist (vote fraud).

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Uberbah]

You mean some dipshit wingnut on Fox News? Sure, that's persuasive....

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Uberbah]

Are you really that fucking stupid

Are you? Vote fraud is so rare as to be functionally non-existent, so you have no business telling people to get ID's when you don't have a use case for it.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Plus1Entropy]

You are not seriously suggesting that Libertarians represent mainstream Conservatism in the United States in 2018, are you?

However, I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. If you agree, then great. Start convincing your fellows on the right and I'll push mine to accept the compromise. But I think (IMHO) you will have a harder time than me.

Considering every other response is either someone weakening one of the 3 provisions (or a fellow Liberal making the demands stronger or clarifying them better than I did)... I don't really feel proven wrong at all. You're the only self-described Conservative to take the offer on the table as it is.

You're an anomaly, I'm sorry to say.

Re: As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Plus1Entropy]

3) same day registration- nah. And since we're casting aspersions here, the only reason you want it is so people can vote multiple times in the same day, in multiple states, and there's no time to validate their eligibility to vote.

As many others have said, you can use provisional ballots, so the eligibility can be validated later. But I'm sure you didn't suggest that because it completely invalidates your argument.

And if the other 2 don't matter, then you have no reason not to take the deal. But you didn't.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Plus1Entropy]

How does having a "nominal" fee prevent fraudsters? Won't Soros just give them the money to pay the fee anyway?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Plus1Entropy]

Meh. Your demand for Voter ID without these things is also unreasonable. So we are at an impasse. Thanks for playing. :D

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Highdude702]

I lost my wallet when i was young, while having a job. Guess what i did? I took the time off work (1 day a week for 3 weeks) and i got my fucking ID.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Highdude702]

Im not in his head, I dont personally like the man, and didnt like when i heard he was running, didnt get to vote for him anyways thanks to voter purging without notification, however i am not going to sit around and huff and puff about every time the man farts in public either "because hes the president!!!!"

Throwing money at it doesn't help

[guruevi]

The vendors should be implementing secure voting systems to begin with. You can't just throw millions of dollars at a problem if you don't understand its origin. The thing is that they could spend less money and be more secure (eg using Linux and open source, encrypted and verifiable voting systems)

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, generally two hours with pay, although public transportation can make a one-way 20 minute trip into a 3-hour bus ride here (seriously). It's easy to end up in a situation where you simply can't vote on election day.

Employers generally don't follow national holidays. They're discretionary.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[aquacrayfish]

Amusing, but I'm pretty sure you know there's a difference between election integrity and arguing whether the Electoral College is the right approach. And I'm in favor of her staying quiet at this point because people aren't going to listen to her.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bluefoxlucid]

What happens when you don't have your wallet, social security card, or birth certificate? Do you just walk into the MVA and declare you're Joe Schmidt, address 777 Poppyseed Lane, and walk out with a photo ID?

Maybe you could go to several and get 25 different photo IDs under 25 different names.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[tbannist]

I don't see your point because the founding fathers also enshrined in law that only male, white, landowners were be allowed to vote. Also, they waged an armed rebellion against a government that didn't represent the will of the majority of Americans, so I'm seeing some mixed messages here. Also, I seriously doubt that the electoral college is actually working the way that they expected it to work.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[skam240]

Curse that old grandmother!

It's amusing to me how badly Republicans want to keep Hillary relevant nowadays.

Here, it's terribly simple

[skam240]

Is it really such a stretch of the imagination for you that a country that looks to see their favored US presidential candidate elected through social media influence and hacking for dirt wouldn't be happy about lax voting security?

Or maybe you're just being willfully naive?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[CanHasDIY]

You are not seriously suggesting that Libertarians represent mainstream Conservatism in the United States in 2018, are you?

Nope, I was just responding to your generalization.

Re:Do they really believe what they are saying

[Talderas]

To be fair, $350 million had already been allocated to the states for securing elections back in March 2018 and the Republicans have rejected this proposal saying that they should wait to see how the states allocate money before allocating more money to the states.

To be fair, this is the second rejected proposal since March to send additional funds to secure elections.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Highdude702]

That was my point. I had none of those. I did what adults do.. I handled what I needed to be able to be a functioning member of society.

BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious]

[Tablizer]

The Democrats have become the party of illegal immigration.

Both parties have neglected the issue, but for different reasons. Democrats tend to ignore it because illegals are more likely to give birth to future Democrat voters.

And GOP has ignored it because business likes the cheap labor illegals bring, and business funds GOP campaigns.

If Democrats were really serious about immigration, they'd work with Trump and bring a sane immigration policy that put American interests first.

Sorry, but the Orange Guy is doing it wrong. Rather than obsessing on a wall, focus on hiring more border guards, and auditing business hiring practices. He seems reluctant to do the second because he's a "pro business" politician, and doesn't want Mar-a-Lago etc. audited.

Democrats once offered a bill to hire more border guards, but GOP turned it down, in part over alleged debt concerns.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

I'll as you the same question:

If I care about immigration reform, which party is more likely to get me there? The one that wants no reform and blanket amnesty, or the one somewhat divided on the issue? Which party is calling for the abolition of ICE? Which party creates "sanctuary" cities/states? Which party runs cities that won't even convict a cold-blooded killer of manslaughter?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[bluefoxlucid]

clovis apparently had to be a functional member of society who could physically travel to other states, take days off work, spend hundreds of dollars, and get lawyers involved. What about the poors who are barely able to make rent?

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[FictionPimp]

We don't need a voters list. We can validate the ID. If the ID is unable to be validated as an official government ID we have bigger issues than voter fraud.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[jeff4747]

I think you need to establish that it is not working first. There were 4 confirmed cases of voter fraud in 2016 out of ~130 million votes.

"Widespread voter fraud" is a myth. But it sure keeps you tuned in and buying.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[dryeo]

How do you validate the citizenship part? Lots of government ID such as drivers licenses just takes residency I believe.
Then there's the people who may have valid ID under different names such as the newly married woman with some ID in her maiden name and some in her married name.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

GOP is not "divided" on the issue: they've had at least 2 chances for reform and border guard increases, and flaked both times. They only give it lip service because GOP voters want to hear it, but flake because their biz funders DONT want it. Legalized bribery works.

(You are spinning the Kate Steinle story. It's more nuanced.)

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

they've had at least 2 chances for reform and border guard increases, and flaked both times

Are you saying Democrats were going to allow an end to chain migration and enact a merit-based system in exchange for amnesty? No, you're not. What you mean is Democrats were offering the same shit deal Reagan pushed through. No real change except for another block of Democrat voters.

(You are spinning the Kate Steinle story. It's more nuanced.)

Oh, really? Please explain then. Also see how you didn't touch the abolition issue.

Re:As long as the security isn't proper id...

[Highdude702]

hundreds of dollars? costed me $54 bucks from milwaukee county to get my birth certificate. I never left vegas. btw what do you consider poor? i made $12/hr at the time.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

The gun handler claimed it was an accident. Just because you don't like the Jury's decision does not make the reason related to amnesty. Did you dissect the jurors' neurons or something?

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

The gun handler claimed it was an accident.

His story was inconsistent. Regardless, at the minimum it should have been manslaughter. If you pick up a gun that doesn't belong to you, and you "accidentally" shoot it, and kill somebody, that qualifies as manslaughter.

Did you dissect the jurors' neurons or something?

Considering that San Francisco is the capital of Libtardia, it's a reasonable assumption that his immigration status had something to do with it.

And I'll note again you still have nothing to say about the abolition of ICE.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

Considering that San Francisco is the capital of Libtardia, it's a reasonable assumption that his immigration status had something to do with it.

So, you have NO real evidence, you are just guessing out of your FoxHole. I wasted my time debating you.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

You have no explanation for why it wasn't at least manslaughter. I applied Occam's Razor. What did you do except bury your head in the sand? Why did you, again, ignore the abolition of ICE demands? Democrats have become the party of illegal immigrants.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

You have no explanation for why it wasn't at least manslaughter. I applied Occam's Razor.

You cannot accuse a jury of being biased for a specific motivation based on Occam's Razor. You were not on the jury and were not privy to the discussion. You have no specific details to suggest the jury "did it wrong". They too should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

If you use Occam's Razor to form an internal personal guess, that's fine, but you implied it was definitive conclusion. Don't open your trap unless you have reasonably solid evidence, NOT personal guesses using very indirect means. This is Slashdot; we expect more logic and details, not stream of conscientiousness chatter. If we wanted the latter, we'd tune into the President.

And to me, Occam's Razor says there are too many alternative possibilities to select a specific one as a solid or most-likely guess. In other words, Occam's Razor produces no answer in this case because there's too many possibilities and insufficient information to select among them for a top guess(es).

Man up and admit you made a mistake.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

You cannot accuse a jury of being biased for a specific motivation based on Occam's Razor.

Yes I can. The facts of the case were public.

If you use Occam's Razor to form an internal personal guess, that's fine, but you implied it was definitive conclusion.

It fits a pattern of libshit cities like San Francisco. He shouldn't have even been in the country, but San Francisco, being a "sanctuary" city, let him go from jail.

Man up and admit you made a mistake.

Why do you refuse to talk about the abolition of ICE? Why do you hold the Democrats and Republicans equally accountable for immigration policies, when the Democrats support "sanctuary" city/states, created the "DACA" amnesty, want a "clean" DACA amnesty, and oppose all immigration reform, including an end to chain migration, the "diversity" lottery, and national e-verify?

Go on, man up. Address the issues.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

The facts of the case were public.

But the reasoning of the jury is not. QED.

It fits a pattern of libshit cities like San Francisco.

I could play the same game and say most red-state Fox/Rush media consumers are brainwashed such that they automatically assume that a vast majority of San Franciscans are heavily biased toward pro-illegal-immigration such that the jurors cannot make fair jury decisions.

Using this brainwash assumption, I could state that your automatic bias makes you unfit to apply Occam's Razor. QED2.

If you had statistical evidence that X do Y at Z% of the time, you may have a case. But "Hannity said so" is not statistical evidence.

Why do you refuse to talk about the abolition of ICE?

After you admit you screwed up the first topic. Finish your plate before get you desert, young lady.

Your logic sucks eggs.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

After you admit you screwed up the first topic.

Oh, so you're allowed to flail around and ignore my arguments, while you fixate on the most inconsequential and debatable of mine? How convenient for you.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

I just find it better to focus on one topic at a time if it looks like it will be a long, drawn-out discussion. Otherwise, one is dealing with 2+ long drawn-out interweaving discussions.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

You chose to fixate on this minor topic after flailing at the major ones. It's a tactic of weakness by somebody arguing from a losing position, because they are arguing against reality itself:

Democrats are the party of illegal immigration. They own the "sanctuary" city/states, they call for the abolition of ICE, they are the ones against immigration reform. It was their "sanctuary" city policy that resulted in the death of Kate Steinle. They are the ones living in tent cities full of shit. It was their libshit Capital that couldn't even muster a manslaughter murder. And here you are, defending them.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

You chose to fixate on this minor topic after flailing at the major ones.

May I see your Mind-Reader Certificate, please?

Democrats are the party of illegal immigration.

Again, both parties are, based on their history. I will agree that GOP's voting base is less likely to support it, but GOP politicians support it and ignore voters because business pays them Yuuuge bucks to allow illegals in. GOP can pull this off because they give it lip service while they are ignoring voters.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

May I see your Mind-Reader Certificate, please?

I don't need to mind read. It's in the post history. Do you have another explanation for your hypocrisy?

Again, both parties are, based on their history.

False equivalence. Republicans don't run "sanctuary" cities/states. Republicans don't call for the abolition of ice. Obama created DACA amnesty out of thin air. Democrats accept no immigration reform. If there is any hope for immigration reform, it has to come from Republicans. The Democrats have jumped on the open borders train, and there's no turning back.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

I don't need to mind read. It's in the post history.

You mean your hallucinations. Take some courses in debate and logic, Your mind works improperly.

If there is any hope for immigration reform, it has to come from Republicans.

After dropping the ball 7 times they'll finally get it?

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Raenex]

You mean your hallucinations.

I didn't hallucinate you flailing around, failing to address my arguments, and then deciding to single-focus like a laser on the most minor and debatable of my arguments. When pushed, you reverted back to your "both parties" line, ignoring the facts on the ground.

After dropping the ball 7 times they'll finally get it?

Any reform in a positive direction is coming from Republicans. But maybe you're cool with "sanctuary" cities/states, calls for the abolition of ICE, and calls for open borders.

Re:BOTH parties guilty [Re: States can get serious

[Tablizer]

Your biggest sin is accusing the jury AND me of various motivations using very poor evidence, that comes across as "your type always does/thinks X, therefore you are probably doing/thinking X here."

I not going to continue to debate somebody who fails at the basics. I shouldn't have let it get this far. I prefer logical rational people with clear lines of evidence. You are NOT one.

Most people who claim to be good at guessing motivations out loud are usually bozos.

By the way, the main purpose of "sanctuary cities" is so that illegal immigrants corporate with local law enforcement. If cops rat them out, they have no incentive to cooperate, and crime goes up. You should know that. You've probably heard that argument, but will say something like, "That's just an excuse to hide their REAL motivation of kissing up to illegals." Am I right?