Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's ABSENTEE BALLOTS which require more vetting and reasons for not showing up.
Get educated or continue to embarrass yourself.
No, they are mail in ballots, and are treated just like any other mail in ballot. My Mom gets a mail in ballot because she meets the requirements under Texas law. It's exactly the same ballot that I would get if I were to be out of town on Election Day and during early voting.
No, they are mail in ballots, and are treated just like any other mail in ballot. My Mom gets a mail in ballot because she meets the requirements under Texas law. It's exactly the same ballot that I would get if I were to be out of town on Election Day and during early voting.
Why are the highlighted not called 'voter suppression'?
What is that supposed to mean?
I was responding to someone who seemed to think that mail in ballots and absentee ballots are somehow different.
I think Texas law is too restrictive on mail in ballots. Anyone should be able to request one, and there should be multiple options for mailing or dropping off the ballots.
Democrats want to win. They would be fools not to.
So you're assuming the majority of 16 year old voters would vote Democrat. My prediction is voter turnout among 16-18 year old voters would be much lower than the national average and would mirror their local geographic area. End result is giving them the vote would have little effect on state and national elections.
The only people who want to stop election fraud are the people who don't benefit from it. If you could cheat and get away with it, why wouldn't you?
We're not talking about a video game here. We're talking about trillions of dollars, the future of yourself, your family, your children, and the world.
Ooooorrr we're still waiting on proof of all this fraud...
If you, and I mean 'you' generically not personally, say that only 65 yrs old are allowed absentee voting, then I could argue that the disallowance for younger than 65 is 'voter suppression'. Just an example.
The Left frames the issue as 'suppression'. The Right frames the issue as 'integrity'.
Then when any voting related issue is opened for examination to see if the issue is genuinely 'suppression', the Left doubled down even more on the language of 'suppression'.
Take the basic voter ID, for another example. The Left framed the ID as 'racist' based on the argument that some races are not 'sophisticated' enough to have an ID, so any demand for an ID is 'suppression'. No matter how absurdly tenuous is that argument, the Left will not, or rather cannot, back off that 'suppression' argument because to back off from just one argument means the other 'suppression' arguments would be in jeopardy. It means people at large would move towards to 'integrity' argument. So the Left have to superglue every voting issue as 'suppression'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
I think Texas law is too restrictive on mail in ballots. Anyone should be able to request one, and there should be multiple options for mailing or dropping off the ballots.
You can request but justification is a different issue. For the Left, a simple request is enough to grant. And I disagree. If I lose the vote, I have to live with your candidate for at least four yrs. In that four yrs, I could be drafted to a war, my taxes could increase, and so on and on. So for me, I want anyone who want to vote MUST vote in person as default, and the exceptions list would be short. Election Day is a federal holiday? Fine, I will agree to that.
If you, and I mean 'you' generically not personally, say that only 65 yrs old are allowed absentee voting, then I could argue that the disallowance for younger than 65 is 'voter suppression'. Just an example.
The Left frames the issue as 'suppression'. The Right frames the issue as 'integrity'.
Then when any voting related issue is opened for examination to see if the issue is genuinely 'suppression', the Left doubled down even more on the language of 'suppression'.
Take the basic voter ID, for another example. The Left framed the ID as 'racist' based on the argument that some races are not 'sophisticated' enough to have an ID, so any demand for an ID is 'suppression'. No matter how absurdly tenuous is that argument, the Left will not, or rather cannot, back off that 'suppression' argument because to back off from just one argument means the other 'suppression' arguments would be in jeopardy. It means people at large would move towards to 'integrity' argument. So the Left have to superglue every voting issue as 'suppression'.
You can request but justification is a different issue. For the Left, a simple request is enough to grant. And I disagree. If I lose the vote, I have to live with your candidate for at least four yrs. In that four yrs, I could be drafted to a war, my taxes could increase, and so on and on. So for me, I want anyone who want to vote MUST vote in person as default, and the exceptions list would be short. Election Day is a federal holiday? Fine, I will agree to that.
The list I provided is the 4 categories of people who can vote by mail in Texas. It's not just the over 65 folks. Those laws were written by Republican dominate legislatures.
Voter ID was suppression until the Texas Legislature made it possible to get a birth certificate for free for use in getting a valid election ID. There were folks who couldn't afford the $22 a birth certificate costs.
Another form of suppression was not providing any assistance to elderly women who could get a birth certificate, but did not have documentation of each of their name changes from marriage and divorce, didn't have a drivers license or state ID, and had had their bank accounts long enough that an ID wasn't required when the account was opened. That's becoming much less of an issue as those women die.
I do not think we have any issues with election integrity, it's all stupidity propagated by Trump and his giant ego that can't accept the fact that he lost bigly. Let people vote in the manner that makes sense to them. Mail, in person, middle of the night, whatever.
Ooooorrr we're still waiting on proof of all this fraud...
If it ain't broke, there's nothing to fix.
Politics is a cynical game. No one actually wants a fair fight. They want to win.
You'll hear them say "no widespread fraud". I have no idea what widespread means, but you'll notice they never just say "fraud", because everyone knows there is fraud.
The question is, why do the Democrats oppose voter ID? Most countries require ID to vote, including the Scandinavian countries the Democrats often rant about. The reason Democrats oppose voter ID isn't because of any sound principle. They don't want to lose votes.
And why do Republicans want voter ID? Not because they actually care about election integrity or any of the nonsense they claim, but because they think it will help them win.
If the Democrats believed voter ID would help them win, they would support it. If Republicans believed lowering the voting age to 16 would help them win, they would support it.
As for elections being broken. What would you even consider broken?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
