Political Discussions

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:
I have never seen a police officer at a Pennsylvania polling station. As a matter of fact, police officers on duty are banned from polling stations unless they are actually voting, or there is some sort of disturbance they are called in to handle. . There is typically a constable, but he or she has no arresting authority.

I use officers as a general term. Could be local, could be sheriffs, just being general.

How many people live in the town that you vote? In the town where my wife works there’s 110,000 people. 55k where I live.

It doesn't matter how large the town is. It's a state law. No state police, no local police, no Sheriff's deputies. What are you guys doing up there, trying to intimidate voters and suppress the vote? And what do you have going on that you need police at every polling location in every town over 55k people. There aren't enough police in the state to put 6-8 at every polling location.

Todd. I asked a pretty simple question. How many people live in your town? I assuming public safety. Man…. All that voter fraud in your state tho huh?!? Damn…. I would have never had thought you would be ok with this.

Section 71. The presiding officer at each polling place shall enforce the performance by election officers of their duties. During an election and the counting of the ballots after the close of the polls, he shall have authority to maintain order and to enforce obedience to his lawful commands, in and about the polling place and to keep the access thereto open and unobstructed, and he may require any police officer, constable or other person to communicate his orders and directions and assist in their enforcement.

I'll post the statute when I get home. No police within 100 feet of a polling place. It doesn't matter about the size of the town.

Again, my point was going to be that we have a lot of people in our town. I don’t care if you’ve got six people and a horse in your town I was just telling you about our situation. But I understand this says discussion at the top of the thread. It usually takes two people to have a discussion unless it’s the voices in my head.

Well ok. I'm fairly rural, probably 400 people vote at my polling station. I don't get your point though. Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania, and they have 10s of thousands of people that go to any particular polling station, and the police are not allowed to be within 100 feet of those places either. So, what is your point? More people mean more danger, or more fraud, or more possibility of fraud? Or what?

Are you saying you support voter fraud?

I see allot of those ? things but don’t know what to do with them!!

Edit you immediately assumed that I wanted some sort of argument. I was just asking a question so we could’ve had a conversation. I see that you’re not up for something like that. Consider this portion closed.

Pete, I'm not sure where you're getting your assumptions about what I said, or why I said it, but you are the one arguing. I merely pointed out that police are not allowed by PA law to be within 100 feet of a polling place, and the very reason the statute was enacted was to prevent voter intimidation.

Those question marks mean I'm asking you questions. You know, part of having a discussion.

How exactly do my questions suggest I'm OK with voter fraud? I agree with the PA statute, the police do not need to be present at polling places, it can tend towards intimidation. That does not mean I am OK with fraud. Those kind of comments show you to be looking for argument, and being trollish.

I read the same thing…. Before asking you any questions. I’m out. You won.

Findlaw.com.

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:
I read the same thing…. Before asking you any questions. I’m out. You won.

Findlaw.com.

I wasn't trying to win. Stop being petty, man.

You didn’t want to answer a pretty basic and benign question. My friend I’m not the one being petty.

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:
I read the same thing…. Before asking you any questions. I’m out. You won.

Findlaw.com.

I wasn't trying to win. Stop being petty, man.

You didn’t want to answer a pretty basic and benign question. My friend I’m not the one being petty.

It's not that I didn't want to answer it. It had no bearing on my situation. From my perspective, it was moot, so I skipped past it. If I had known you would read into something that wasn't intended, I would have answered it, if only to avoid this nonsense.

I was trying to have a conversation…. But…You wanted to be right. I was going ask about your experience at your polling locations. But honestly, I don’t care anymore. You’re right Todd. You be right about what ever you wanted to be right about. Conversation usually takes two people someone answering questions. I know it will kill you not to get the last word in. You go and I won’t respond. Congratulations on your win 🥇

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:

@TRayB said:

@Vision said:
I read the same thing…. Before asking you any questions. I’m out. You won.

Findlaw.com.

I wasn't trying to win. Stop being petty, man.

You didn’t want to answer a pretty basic and benign question. My friend I’m not the one being petty.

It's not that I didn't want to answer it. It had no bearing on my situation. From my perspective, it was moot, so I skipped past it. If I had known you would read into something that wasn't intended, I would have answered it, if only to avoid this nonsense.

I was trying to have a conversation…. But…You wanted to be right. I was going ask about your experience at your polling locations. But honestly, I don’t care anymore. You’re right Todd. You be right about what ever you wanted to be right about. Conversation usually takes two people someone answering questions. I know it will kill you not to get the last word in. You go and I won’t respond. Congratulations on your win 🥇

It's always like this with you, Pete.

What part of my initial post about the police at PA polling places wasn't conversational? The post was entirely apolitical. I am at a loss, really.

So I guess I lied about my last post. No Todd this is always about you thinking that there’s some sort of battle to be won. Some sort of contest to see who can be more right. I truthfully was gonna ask you about your experiences in a small town compared to ours in heavily populated towns. That’s it, my man. Nothing hidden, nothing to be won. It was just about your experiences at poling locations. Todd, you don’t like me fine. But it doesn’t mean we can’t have a normal conversation once in a while.

Adding:

I wanted to know what it looked like when you showed up. Just wanted to know. Are you the only one there, is it a small town operation? Are there long lines? Do you have to wait? Jesus man… it’s not always a **** battle.

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@Itsfine said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@ShawnOL said:
Everybody has an id, even the illegals.

You know, when I lived overseas it seems like every country I travelled in the local people universally used their passports as their ID, and everyone, really, everyone had one. Perhaps we should try some simple solution like that?

Social security cards are already auto issued.

Passport is issued to a citizen of a country, and no other country, is this also the case with SS? If so, perhaps it would suffice? But, it's just a card with a name and numbers on it, no way of knowing if the person who's carrying it is the person they say they are. No picture, no description, and they are quite flimsy and probably very easy to forge. Not so much with the passport. So, eliminate the Social Security card and add the number to the passport? Might not be a bad idea, and use that as voter ID as well. We could even add drivers license section once the requirements have been met.

We are still talking about voter eligibility here? I'm not sure why anyone would want foreign nationals voting in our elections. I don't want to go to Mexico and vote in theirs, or Russia, or China, or Somalia, or anywhere else in the world. How is this even a question? Who wants people from other countries voting in our elections? No one with our best interest at heart, that's for sure.

I understand where you're coming from regarding the picture. Of course, passports have like a 10-year expiration and so the picture may not necessarily match. Arizona issues driver's licenses that are good for 45 years, so I'm not so sure that the picture matters so much. Even if it did, you got 90-year-old grandmas at the polling stations, who can probably barely see their own hand let alone a one inch picture on a wallet-sized card.

I guess even if somebody did use another person's social security card to vote, You're still getting just social security number per vote.

Like I said before, I don't think that there's any sane person who is arguing that they don't want efficacy in elections. It's more about the method I guess.

I was once denied at the polling station because I only presented my military ID card in Virginia. They said it had to be a driver's license. Bunk, I say.

I think that ultimately, this problem hasn't been solved because it's not a very big problem at all. It may not be a problem at all, conspiracies aside.

@ForMud said:
The sexual tension beteen you two in this thread is strong.
I think you guys need to meet up at one of the rest areas on the Jersey Turnpike for a hug.

$20

https://latenighter.com/news/late-show-james-talarico-interview-fcc-equal-time/

Colbert detailed his run-in with CBS over the interview during Monday night’s broadcast.

“[James Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said. “Then, I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this… let’s talk about this.”