• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida's new restrictive voting laws blocked

Mycroft said:
It doesn't make it more difficult to vote. People still have the choice to vote in person or request an absentee ballot.
Click to expand...
It's an unnecessary change that plainly doesn't make it easier now does it? There's nothing wrong with sending out ballot applications. The actual ballots get checked for legitimacy. Anything that encourages the vote is a good thing. Anything less is un-American and probably un-Constitutional.

Mycroft said:
They aren't worried about people stealing drop boxes. They are worried about people stuffing drop boxes...hence the increased security measures.
Click to expand...
They aren't worried about stuffing drop boxes either because that would easily get found during the counting and validation processes. The anti-tampering measures are also to keep ballots from being taken and thrown away. Reducing the number of drop boxes doesn't make them more secure, it only serves to make it harder to vote.

Mycroft said:
Please quote the definition. Point out what is "extremely vague" about it.
Click to expand...
I did: "engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter."

Mycroft said:
And that's a bad thing? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
On the surface it's not a bad thing, but it depends on who interprets the actions doesn't it? Wouldn't you agree there's a strong potential for abuse by leaving it so open-ended like that?

Mycroft said:
shrug...their choice. All they have to do is follow the law.
Click to expand...
Sure assuming the law is clear and understandable, as opposed vague, open-ended, and up to the mood and political lean of whatever judge they happen to get.
 
I am just assuming this, but given that you are answering this man's posts but ignoring mine, I guess it means that you decided to dismiss yourself from our conversation, due to your inability to address my posts. I love it. Mycroft, you are a walking disaster relief-need event.
 
I still can’t comprehend how mail boxes have been safe and secure for decades but Republicans are shitting all over themselves about drop boxes…
 
I don't understand how these arguments survive in court...

If requiring someone to provide an ID when voting is racist then it's also racist asking for an ID for any other reason.
 
I think there is a good argument to be made for excluding those people from the voting process. They don't sound like people with the best judgement for picking leaders.
 
trouble13 said:
I don't understand how these arguments survive in court...

If requiring someone to provide an ID when voting is racist then it's also racist asking for an ID for any other reason.
Click to expand...
I fully understand what you are saying and it does make sense for people like you and I to have a valid ID ready to prove who we are. Nonetheless, neither you not I have been in a situation where getting and ID is difficult, like it is for many underprivileged poor and Black people.

Up until now, what was being done in those cases was working well. There had been no substantial voter fraud because of it. Elections had all been without substantial voter fraud before.

What the Republicans are now demanding is that those people that had always had problems getting an ID now have to get one. To you and I, it makes sense to do that but the reality is that is does give the Republicans an edge now that they didn't have before and should not have (given that those underprivileged people have as much right to vote as we do).

Those people now have to do something they never needed to do before and it is going to be difficult for them and in many cases, the problems in getting those ID's are going to be more of a problem "for them" than their desire or ability to vote.

Given that there has never been a problem before, getting these requirements now changed will give the Republicans an "unfair" advantage.

If you have problem understanding why this is such a big problem for them, why don't you personally go and talk to a few of them, so they can explain it better than I can. You can get it straight from the "horse's mouth" instead of relying on the rider of the horse to explain it to you. The rider will not be representing the horse, he will be representing what favors him. That is what the Republicans are doing.

Getting these previous rules changed is fine, but not now. They should be changed when the problems of education, need and poorness, and all the things that cause these problems now are resolved. Changing them now, is simply a ploy by the Republicans to help them in the elections, which right now they need because of all the wrongs the Republicans have been doing.
 
trouble13 said:
I think there is a good argument to be made for excluding those people from the voting process. They don't sound like people with the best judgement for picking leaders.
Click to expand...
Well, if the ability to choose leaders is the requirement, then all those that voted for Trump in 2020 (about 70 million) should be excluded from all future elections. They showed a complete inability to chose a leader. Trump clearly showed from 2016-2020 that he is not a leader.

By the way, I am serious about this. I am not joking. Those poor and socio disadvantaged people that voted, showed more intelligence and knowledge about voting for a leader than any Trumper showed.
 
Last edited:
If the argument is that we should not change the law because it gives one side an advantage that it did not have before than mail in ballot laws should also not be changed because they give democrats an advantage that they didn't have before.
 
I take personal offense to your remark. I did vote for Trump and depending on the choices would vote for him again. I am not a stupid person. Despite all the hyperbole for and against him, overall he was a decent president.
 
I often check which nominated a judge for a good or bad ruling. Yup, good ruling, Obama nominated this judge.
 
You threw any credibility you may have had into the shitter when you joined the Big Lie club.
 
trouble13 said:
If the argument is that we should not change the law because it gives one side an advantage that it did not have before than mail in ballot laws should also not be changed because they give democrats an advantage that they didn't have before.
Click to expand...
Except that history does not favor you saying that the Democrats had an advantage before, given that in the last 100 years, there have been 15 Republican presidents and only 10 Democrat presidents, meaning that the Democrats did not have any advantage in the voting.
 
Im only referring to mail in ballots.
 
trouble13 said:
I think there is a good argument to be made for excluding those people from the voting process. They don't sound like people with the best judgement for picking leaders.
Click to expand...
I think there is a good argument to be made for excluding you from the voting process. You don’t sound like someone with the best judgement for picking leaders.
 
trouble13 said:
If the argument is that we should not change the law because it gives one side an advantage that it did not have before than mail in ballot laws should also not be changed because they give democrats an advantage that they didn't have before.
Click to expand...
The Democrats have not had any advantage. The election process continues to be all about the majority of votes and majority in the electoral college. Maintaining the election process as it has been will not give the Democrats any advantage as it is the same as before, when more Republican presidents won than Democratic presidents.

The Democrats are not the ones that are submitting new rules. It is the Republicans that are submitting new rules. As such, it is the Republicans that want to "change" the election process, which does not need a change. As such, they are the ones looking for an advantage. The Democrats don't need an advantage, especially when the Republicans are offering such bad candidates such as Trump. Common sense people will not vote for such a disaster to occur (Trump is a disaster). They do not need an advantage, they just need the public to keep their eyes open. No help at the voting booths is needed. The Republicans do need help at the voting booth. How else can they have a chance of a disaster being elected?
 

The bolded is why the judge is a judge, and you're not!

Reference:

Dunning-Kruger Effect
 
Luckyone said:
Mail in ballots go all the way back to 1896, meaning that they apply to all the presidents elected in the past 100 years
Click to expand...

Your changing your argument. You said voter ID laws (which have been around forever too) were unacceptable because they unfairly favored Republicans.

I'm pointing out that mail in ballots favor Democrats and by your own logic should disqualify expanding those laws.

You seem to want thing both ways depending on what favors your position in the moment.
 
Decypher said:
I think there is a good argument to be made for excluding you from the voting process. You don’t sound like someone with the best judgement for picking leaders.
Click to expand...
Make it
 
The Democrats most certainly are demanding new rules. They are expanding when the polls are open by days and they opening up mail in ballot citing to everyone. Those are new rules and surprise surprise those changes favor Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…