Author Topic: Supreme Court Decisions  (Read 35879 times)

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8476
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2020, 09:02:10 AM »
Oh Im so sorry to inconvenience you by asking you to show up to a polling station and exercise one of your civic duties! Please, excuse my outrageous request.

I have seen it printed that Donald Trump votes by mail, and I have never seen you rail against him for doing so.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 09:07:26 AM by ERICOPOLY »


cwericb

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2020, 09:06:03 AM »
Funny how most first world countries have figured out how to handle voting by mail.

"Also:   Why do you put "pandemic" in quotes?   I understand that you think COVID is no big deal, but the situation is literally the definition of a pandemic. "

Because there are some here that still think Covid-19 is "just the flu".

This despite nearly 300,000 people dead in the US, 1,600,000 worldwide. Hospitals overrun. Medical staff burnt out and dying. Serious after effects on individuals months later.  3.3 billion global workforce are at risk of losing their livelihoods. Widespread interruptions to food processing and manufacturing. Etc, ad infinitum.

But just like the flu because the markets have, so far, shrugged off the effects so obviously it is no big deal.
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. - Mark Twain

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2020, 09:10:54 AM »
LOL, go on. Tell us more. It had been about a week without a covid update from cwericb....

cwericb

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2020, 10:14:15 AM »
LOL, go on. Tell us more. It had been about a week without a covid update from cwericb....

Well someone needs to keep you updated on the “flu”.

But with 16 million active cases of a deadly disease spreading throughout the country, you advocate that people get together,  stand in lines for hours, and crowd into voting stations from coast to coast.

Sounds like a great idea to stop the spread. Too bad you couldn't keep it in your own country.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 10:32:23 AM by cwericb »
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. - Mark Twain

dwy000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2020, 10:49:41 AM »
Oh Im so sorry to inconvenience you by asking you to show up to a polling station and exercise one of your civic duties! Please, excuse my outrageous request.

I have seen it printed that Donald Trump votes by mail, and I have never seen you rail against him for doing so.

I live in Oregon and it is 100% mail in voting and has been for years (if not decades).  No option to vote in person.  There's never been a problem.  It's simple, efficient and works.

The goal should be to get everyone who wants to vote able to vote.  Remove as many impediments as possible.  The only people who are against this concept are ones who benefit from impediments.  It's the same argument as the Electoral College.  It's historic and non-representative of the will of all Americans.  But it also makes it harder for some to ever win so they will fight it tooth and nail.   If you are afraid of having people vote you probably don't represent a majority of people.

doc75

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2020, 10:50:19 AM »


What dont you get? Ive made clear my opinion, which I am entitled to, many times over the past year here. If you cant get off your ass and to a voting station, you shouldn't be able to vote. Only exceptions medical disability or on leave. Several states have exactly this type of rule/provision. Some just took it upon themselves to change it.

I believe there are likely huge % of people who did mail ins that would have otherwise went to the polls. But as for the lazy sacks of shit who wouldn't have, I have no issues with their votes not counting. There is no question, given the final figures, that a great number of people simply wouldn't have voted if they had to go to the polls....

And convenience? LOL please.....Oh Im so sorry to inconvenience you by asking you to show up to a polling station and exercise one of your civic duties! Please, excuse my outrageous request. Let me get you a paper ballot you can fill out on your couch! Are you kidding me. If you're too lazy to go to the polls, you shouldn't be able to vote.....Part of ones civic duty as an American is being inconvenienced sometimes. Sorry, paying taxes is inconvenient...jury duty...totally inconvenient. At one point in my life I'd have been losing in excess of $5,000 a day getting stuck with jury duty...slightly more than an "inconvenience"....Considering every election is hyped up as "the most important of our lives"...if you cant get off your ass, to hell with you.

My apologies.  I don't keep up with all your political posts.      So you're not insinuating fraud.  You support discarding votes from people who followed the rules but are, in your opinion, "lazy sacks of shit".    I think that's horrendous but of course you're entitled to your opinion.

As for your rant about convenience:

I think it's nonsensical to equate one's duty with the process by which one discharges that duty (civic or otherwise).  Things change, processes evolve.  Imagine for a moment that e-voting were widely established practice before you reached voting age.  You wouldn't have a preconceived notion that "civic duty" = "vote in person",  and you'd very likely choose to vote online for convenience. Nobody would call you lazy for doing it and you'd apparently save  at least $5000 / 24 * (# hrs it takes to vote in person) in the process.

On this point:  Since my last post, I've discovered that I lied.  I said that I would gladly vote by mail if that option were available to me.  It turns out that it is available --- I just never bothered looking into it.  I've been too lazy to look up whether I could save 30 mins every 4 -5 years.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-elections-canada-bracing-for-increase-in-mail-in-ballots-if-vote-held/

(But I do vote online in municipal elections.  Love that.)










Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2020, 11:15:06 AM »
LOL, go on. Tell us more. It had been about a week without a covid update from cwericb....

Well someone needs to keep you updated on the “flu”.

But with 16 million active cases of a deadly disease spreading throughout the country, you advocate that people get together,  stand in lines for hours, and crowd into voting stations from coast to coast.

Sounds like a great idea to stop the spread. Too bad you couldn't keep it in your own country.


Yawn.....



Simple Investor

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2020, 11:19:20 AM »
I've think voting should be as easy as possible and longer than 8-12 hour window.

I'm open to understanding the opposing view on that.   

Convenience has been a tremendous investing trend. 




cwericb

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2020, 11:23:18 AM »
Seems to be an increasing number of posters here who resort to posting some dumb picture when they can't come up with any sort of logical explanation to support their position.

And in many cases these are the same posters who don't believe their country has the ability to hold a legitimate elections with mail in votes.

Unfortunate.
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. - Mark Twain

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
Re: Supreme Court Decisions
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2020, 11:26:30 AM »
So is it convince we're after? Or the integrity of the election? Cant argue both sides?

Cuz for every "the voting machine is rigged" claim...its pretty easy to run a manual check on that.

However handing paper ballots to third parties that hand them to fourth parties, so on and so forth, that occasionally have instances where ballots are found in dumpsters or rivers or in trunks....certainly leaves a lot of room open to questioning? Casting a ballot directly and in person removes pretty much any room for shenanigans. Why is this so difficult to understand?