Well if you take an argument from the right then yeah, requiring an ID and background check to purchase a firearm isn't constitutional. So therefore you kind of proved my point? How are you going to say background checks and waiting periods on firearm purchases are unconstitutional yet requiring an ID to vote is. Just seems to me like the logic isn't there.

What's even funnier is I am very pro-ID laws. It just so happens that since the Voting Rights Act was destroyed that A LOT of lawsuits have been won against states (like NC) that implemented voter ID laws. The running theme here seems to be that they are directly targeted towards minorities.

Then there's shit like this:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-files-of-the-master-of-modern-republican-gerrymandering

I mean Jesus Christ. How could you even argue that these laws aren't racist in 2020? We have the court cases and evidence to prove they are.

So do definitions matter or not? Because poll watchers are specific people appointed by political parties, not random people off the streets.

When it's convenient you decry changing definitions, but when it's not you say "at this point it means X".

We have never allowed random people off the streets to get involved in counting ballots in any function. This is not new, this is not fraud, the counting is already overseen by bipartisan groups appointed by the parties. The only function these fake poll watchers serve is to disrupt the process, which is exactly what Trump wants by his own admission.

https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter/Index
William Bradley
Born: 4 mar 1902
ZIP: 48207

His vote has been cast. He died in 1984.

Sketchy stuff in MI.

Trump prompted a lawsuit in GA about the validity of some absentee ballots in Chatham county and was immediately struck down by a judge.

The fun fact is that Trump will have to proof that they cheated.
So really its not about the argument of the 'Demmies'



The fact that Biden / Harris is NOT Trump is more than enough for any half-way sane person.




exactly this!

This post was edited by Epple on Nov 5 2020 11:30am

That's a false talking point as well. The Constitution allows for the suspension or removal of rights depending on criminal actions committed. It's perfectly reasonable to require an ID and a NICS background check for the purchase of a firearm, to insure the purchaser IS a citizen able to legally be armed first of all, and second to insure they have not forfeited their right to own. Just as a polling station has every right to require ID to insure the person is indeed a citizen, and has not forfeited their right to vote.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. If you're pro-ID laws, then stop arguing, because you're bad at it.

The boring answer is that it was likely a clerical error.

Conservatives will decry the state as incompetent in one breathe and then say they are capable of orchestrating massive voter fraud rings to benefit one candidate in the next.

In reality, these things almost always have a boring explanation.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 5 2020 11:30am

I googled this. Looks like this is a false claim. Not sure why you linked to that website as you can't look up anyone but yourself

put up or shut up u dickless old bitch

Hold up, hold up. I need to take my "protects against fallacious arguments" pill.
The amount of absolutely illogical statements in the last 4-5 posts, has set off my "warning.. dipshyts are present" alarm.