The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Ipsos/Reuters Poll: The Big Lie
Over half of Republicans believe Donald Trump is the actual President of the United States. (https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-05/Ipsos%20Reuters%20Topline%20Write%20up-%20The%20Big%20Lie%20-%2017%20May%20thru%2019%20May%202021.pdf)

Topline Findings
Washington, DC, May 21, 2021 - Former President Donald Trump’s stronghold over the Republican party remains. His refusal to concede the 2020 election and calls of widespread fraud have raised doubts about the integrity of its results among his Republican base. Consequently, 56% of Republicans believe the election was rigged or the result of illegal voting, and 53% think Donald Trump is the actual President, not Joe Biden. Only 30% of Republicans feel confident that absentee or mail-in ballots were accurately counted, compared to 86% of Democrats and 55% of independents. As a result, 87% of Republicans believe it is important that the government place new limits on voting to protect elections from fraud. Finally, 63% percent of Republicans think Donald Trump should run for President again in 2024, compared to only 8% of Democrats and 23% of independents.

---

The question itself is formatted as:

"Who do you think the true President is right now? Choose one."

Multiple choice with two answers, Donald Trump or Joe Biden.  25% of all respondents and 53% of Republicans said Trump.

This is why all the both-sides talk of "far right vs. far left" is absurd.  Find me a poll from mid-2016 where the majority of Democrats say they believe Hillary Clinton is the president "right now."  You can't, because the left-wing crazies haven't taken over the Democratic Party like they have the GOP.

There was no widespread evidence of fraud in the 2016 election

ArtieChokePhin, do you believe Donald Trump is the true President of the United States right now?

There's no widespread evidence of fraud right now either.

Biden is president now, unless his brain gives way.  I have not seen any fraud aegations except from the nut Crowder

Not completely accurate.  There is zero evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election.  There is overwhelming evidence that the Trump campaign illegally solicited and received Russian assistance in the 2016 election. 

Slight correction:

This should read "mid-2017."

I will also accept a poll from mid-2001, after Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court stopped Florida's recount and installed George W. Bush as President.  No matter how disgruntled Democrats were by this nakedly partisan (and technically legal) theft of the Presidency, at no point was there a polled majority of Democrats who believed that Al Gore was actually the President in 2001.

Even after the 2016 election, you still believe these silly polls? You seem to care a lot about what Republicans think. I think you're really an in the closet Republican. You may identify as a liberal, but you were really born a Republican. Hell, you might be TRANSpolitical, come out that closet already, LMFAO.

Probably 65% of my friends and coworkers are Republicans and I'm not aware of a single one of them who thinks that Trump is the rightful president right now.  I suppose a couple of them might think it, but if they do, they keep awfully quiet about it which means they probably understand how preposterous the idea is.   Reuters is usually a reasonably fair polling source, but I would be very interested it seeing an exact breakdown of how that poll was conducted and what their pool of interviewees consisted of. 

I believe the election was stolen from him. 

stolen by the majority of voters

This has been so thoroughly disproven over and over again.  It just makes you sound foolish.

I don't know if anything has been disproven, it's more about how things can't be proven. 

When given the opportunity to support any claims of fraud, they have been unable, over and over and over again.  They say they have evidence, but it's a lie, because they never present it.  It's all a lie for the media, to keep donations coming in and any accusations against Trump, they can call a political hit.

A con-man is lying to you.  He's just lying.  He has been lying this whole time.  He will continue to keep lying.

Trump has been lying since the first time I saw him on TV during the 80's...and it boggles my mind that there are so many completely gullible fools that believe the shit he dishes up.

I rode a literal dragon yesterday to work. That's how I had my commute, flying around on a dragon. No-one saw because the dragon used invisibility magic to hide.

It also hasn't been disproven and I'm pretty sure you can't prove it either.

The default of an outlandish claim isn't "i see no proof so someone must be hiding it" .. it's "it didn't happen"

It really doesn't matter at this point. Creepy Joe and his trainwreck are steaming down the tracks. The midterms should derail his dementia fueled nonsense. If not, hopefully at least he makes it his full term so we don't have a bitter old prostitute running the country.

I would like to note however, while the left may think that Trump supporters sound foolish. There are still a good majority of the left still crying about Russian Collusion. They sound just as foolish, especially with the Hunter Biden China/Russia/Laptop situation. Pot and Kettle situation

There is no way of knowing, of course.  But I would be very interested in finding out how many of his supporters actually "believe the shit he dishes up" and how many of them just feel better about themselves because he was saying things that they liked hearing.  Kind of like a hooker telling her customer that he is "the best she ever had".  The customer has to know that is bullshit, but they probably like hearing it nonetheless.  LOL   Um, I have no personal experience in that example.  It is just an assumption on my part.  LOL

They presented their evidence and the Supreme Court wouldn't hear the case.  The only reason for that is because Chief Justice Roberts claims to be a conservative but in reality is just a liberal plant.

So now your Qanonpublican position is that the Supreme Court, chock-full of Trump appointed lackeys, is actually part of the conspiracy against Donald Trump?

Wow...just...wow

That has nothing to do with what he said and to a point he is right. Look up voting records for Roberts who was nominated by current Democrat George Bush and you'll see he sides with the liberal judges quite often. Establishment is more important than political parties for people like the Bush's and Clinton and Mr Roberts is very establishment friendly. Just ask RBG

+1

I question the poll validity that says 50% of Republicans actually think Trump is President.  Polls can be worded, and spoken by the poller, in a way that elicits the response that the poller wants to receive.  And most respondees just want to get off the phone and don't always pay attention to the exact wording.  Of all the Republicans I know only one thinks Trump is the rightful President, and will still replace Biden.

On the side topic of fraud in the elections, I think it's naive to just categorically say there is no fraud, which is what has happened since right after the election in November; just like I think it's just as wrong to say there was massive fraud without any proof.  I think Biden won the election.  But I also think there could have been some shenanigans, but not enough to change the outcome in several states.  As an example, the congressional district where I live, which covers several counties in upstate New York, was not decided this year until February or March because the vote count was so close.  It had to be litigated before a Judge and there were multiple instances where county election commissioners did not follow the law, or did not know the law.  There were multiple instances were thousands of votes were not counted that should have been counted. (Brindisi vs. Tenney if your interested).  Again, I don't think there could have been enough to change this Presidential election because of the number of states involved, but if it were only one state, then yes I think there could have been enough fraud, or malfeasance, to shift the election.

I think a lot of Republicans think Trump "could" be the president but not that he actually is. Many people thought Hillary actually won. In general people on both sides are leary of what is going on now. There are a lot of opportunities for fraud under the current laws and are why Red states are changing them. The fact you need ID to do many things in regular life but it is racist to require ID for voting is just as absurd as any Q theory but here we are pretending its a normal thing because media is on that side.

You need an ID to do pretty much everything in life in modern society. When the democrats say that it's racist to require voter ID. Just a small list of many things that may require ID:

A Job
Bank Account
Writing a check
Using credit cards
Rent an apartment
Get a mortgage
Drive, buy, or rent a car
Get a Drivers License
Get car insurance
Doctor/Hospital
Get a prescription
Get married
Get on an airplane
Get a hotel room
Buying a firearm
Food Stamps
Welfare
Medicaid
Social Security
Unemployment
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Donate blood
Pawn shop
Hold a rally or protest
Plus many more things not listed

Black people's response to what Democrats think about them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8aP55LlvCg)

If requiring an ID to vote is discriminatory and unconstitutional, then why is it legal to require an ID for all of these other things in life? Because it's just Democrat propaganda. Just like their racist history, Democrats think blacks are too stupid, poor, and/or incompetent to get an ID.

Why would legislatures make it illegal to give someone water if they're standing in line to vote?  .. just curious .. anyone ?

Why would anyone call writing a check modern society  >:D

FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html)

Suffice it to say that the FBI and/or CIA have not issued statements supporting the claim that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, much less that it helped Joe Biden win... nor is their video of Biden literally asking people to commit fraud for him.  So it's not really a good comparison.

The way that the conservative mind works is that if I want to believe that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election and you say, "That's crazy and baseless," then if there's some other claim you make that I don't like, I can say, "That's crazy and baseless," and it's exactly as valid.

I deleted every single item in your list that is NOT guaranteed to citizens under the United States Constitution.  So it's a pretty short list now.

As far as the right to protest: you say it may require ID (with "may" doing the work of Atlas in that sentence, as the overwhelming majority of protesting does NOT require ID), but the voting proposals you support make it so that voting will require an ID, which is not the same thing.

I posted the exact wording of the question.  The question itself was formatted as:

"Who do you think the true President is right now? Choose one."

Multiple choice with two answers, Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

This doesn't sound much different than, "I don't know anyone who voted for Bush, therefore Kerry must have won."

Perhaps the circle of Republicans you personally know are part of the 47% of Republicans that believe Biden is the president.

Once again: I challenge you to cite any poll that shows a majority of Democrats believed Hillary was the president in mid-2017.

The difference between the right and the left is that our crazies are relegated to the fringe, while your crazies are in charge and running the show.

The same reason they would make it illegal to give $1000 to people standing in line.

Because some older people are resistant to change and still use checks in 2021. Most people have a checking account and checking accounts have the option to use checks.

We run a business and still use and accept checks, it's still pretty common especially when dealing with other businesses.

Nominating this for "most accurate post on TDMMC in a non-sports thread."


This makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Even if I try to adjust my mindset to "I'm a Republican and logic plays no part in my thinking," it still makes no sense.

Does your business require ID from another business when a check is issued?

In my experience, when a business cuts a check, they usually mail it.  How would "requiring ID" even work in that scenario?

You've already shown dubious amounts of ID to get the business account, tax ID, EIN, it's all documented online.  You would have needed an ID to take care of all of that stuff already.

That is EXACTLY the argument as to why voter ID laws are unnecessary!

In other words, you already have to present some form of identity verification when you register to vote. So when it comes time to cast your ballot, there is no need to have to verify your identity AGAIN; you already verified it during voter registration.

LMFAO, you're posting a link to a story from December 2016 before Trump was even sworn in. Since then there have been many questions answered. Yes, foreign governments interfered with our election process. That's not the same thing as Trump colluding with them which he was cleared of. And it doesn't mean that their interference had any measurable effect.

I hate to break it to you. But unfortunately, you do not have a constitutional right to vote. Voting in the United States is a privilege, not a right. I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or not.

(Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]) Justice Antonin Scalia, in Bush v. Gore, continuously reminded lawyers that there is no explicit right to vote in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion agreed, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” The Court went on to say that Florida’s legislature has the power to take that power away from the people at any time, regardless of the popular vote tally.

One of countless articles for your reading pleasure. Americans lack right to vote (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/11/16/americans-lack-right-to-vote/)

So in light of that little tidbit of information that I kindly enlightened you with, I'll ask again.

Despite what the Supreme Court ruled, business doesn't equate to a person. I've never seen a business check require an ID either.

Actually you don't have to present ID to register to vote.  You can fill out an online form and you're done.  That's why you need an ID at the polls.

We have the option for a landline phone also but I don't know anyone I consider modern using one.

It's literally in the name, checking account. It's an account designated to write checks from. A certain percentage of the population writes and cashes personal checks. Most banks and stores require you to show ID.

I was just referring to your comment on why anyone would write a check in modern society.  Spider got me on a different tangent. 

I bolded the relevant qualifier in your citation.  SCOTUS most certainly did NOT assert that citizens have no explicit right to vote; states may legally choose their Electoral College delegates in ways other than voting.

The article you linked is either stupid or dishonest.  Taken in good faith, that article means that we ALSO "do not have an explicit constitutional right" to freedom of religion, or speech, or of assembly; the Constitution only says that laws restricting those things are illegal.  But it never specifically says you have those rights in the first place!

So by the standard that you claim voting is not a constitutional right, protesting or freedom of religion aren't constitutional rights, either. To say that constitutional guarantees that the government may not make a law restricting (x) "does not technically mean you have a right to (x)" is, again, either lying or dumb.

In which state are you claiming that one can register to vote without identification?

While you consider your answer, another question: do you believe a person needs identification to apply for a state-issued ID card?

Right here in Florida.  I've done it online myself when I moved, and so have my friends.  When you change the address on your driver's license, you have the option to update your voter registration information.  All that can be done online without ID.

https://registertovoteflorida.gov/home

On the first page of that link:

To submit an online application, you will need:

Your Florida driver license (Florida DL) or Florida identification card (Florida ID card) issued by the Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles.
The issued date of your Florida DL or Florida ID card; and
The last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN4).

It's literally called the "Bill of Rights" which sets protections and restricts laws from limiting those rights. Freedom of religion, or speech, or of assembly are covered in the "Bill of Rights". You will find no such protections for the right to vote. In absence of such protections, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Please provide me with something in the constitution that explicitly says that you either have the "right to vote" or that "it's illegal to restrict your right to vote". I'll wait, LMFAO.......

And here's another one (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/01/opinion/think-constitution-guarantees-your-right-vote-think-again/)
And another one (https://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_faq)


And another one (https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/)

The ironic part about this conversation is that the articles I linked are left leaning rags pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the right to vote. These people are actually pushing YOUR AGENDA and you're arguing with them because you aren't man enough to admit that you're simply wrong

First off: the term "Bill of Rights" does not appear in the Constitution (or its amendments).  The first ten amendments are popularly referred to as the "Bill of Rights," but that is not their legal text.  So if we're playing the pedantic game of "Point out exactly where in the Constitution it says blahblah," you shouldn't even be mentioning the words "Bill of Rights."

That being said, we call them the "Bill of Rights" because - to any reasonably sane person - a law that prohibits restrictions on (x) is a guarantee on your right to (x).  But if you want to insist that the Constitution doesn't technically say you have a "right to vote" (or a "right to freedom of speech," or a "right to freedom of religion")... OK, I guess?  It's an obviously ridiculous claim, and it would get you laughed out of any court, but it is, indeed, an accurate literal reading of the words to say that those freedoms are technically not explicitly guaranteed themselves (only a ban on laws restricting them).

I notice that you don't seem to have a response to the question of what your SCOTUS citation means.  Do you have any other SCOTUS decisions to cite?  Because I have one for you: Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which SCOTUS ruled that the first ten amendments "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments."  This ruling would seem to be... problematic for your interpretation of how rights work.

It's only "ironic" because of the conservative mindset towards politics.  See, because I'm not a conservative, I am not wedded to reflexively defending stupid claims by others on my side of the spectrum, solely out of partisan interest.  I can just call them out and say, "That idea is stupid and wrong," instead of being forced to defend the idea that, say, President Obama is planning to invade Texas.

2A: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It literally say "the right", so why do I need an ID?

Seems like minor nitpicking to complain about (sometimes, in certain situations) having to show an ID to carry a gun.  After all, your 2nd Amendment rights are violated every time you get on a plane or enter a courtroom.  So under a hyper-literal reading of the Constitution, where a law that prohibits the government from making a law restricting a right does not technically confer that right, isn't a gun-free courtroom a violation of your Constitutional rights?  Isn't a law that prevents you from calling for the President to be assassinated a violation of your freedom of speech?

If this is the kind of binary all-or-nothing interpretation of civil rights you want to use, the outcomes get very silly, very quick.

Where is the part of the Constitution that affirms your the right to vote? Or where is the part of the Constitution that makes it illegal to restrict your right to vote? I'm waiting.....

I had a different reply planned, but it turns out that the Constitution does explicitly affirm a right to vote in the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments.  From the horse's mouth itself:

Amendment XV, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment XXVI, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

There are the magic words you've been asking for.  Are you man enough to admit that you're simply wrong?

You're picking and choosing only the parts you want, I highlighted the relevant parts for you. Those 3 amendments were specifically added to prevent abuses to protected classes.

The 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments do not explicitly grant anyone the right to vote. Instead, they prohibits federal and state governments from placing restrictions on voting based on three sets of criteria: race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, and age.

Based on that criteria exactly as written. Aside from those 5 specific reasons can the government legally deny citizens from voting?

Your claim was that there is no part of the Constitution that explicitly affirms a right to vote.  But it's literally right there: multiple Amendments state that the right of citizens to vote shall not be restricted for (reason).

Now, you could have been making the argument that the (real and obvious) right of citizens to vote can legally be restricted for various valid reasons other than the ones specifically prohibited... but that's not the road you decided to take.  Instead, you chose to insist that such a right doesn't even exist, based on nutjob claims from random websites.  (How incredibly ironic that the one "left-wing" theory you decide to hitch your wagon to is so transparently false!)

Once more, for clarity:

The cited Amendments specifically reference a right to vote in the process of stating how that right (WHICH MUST THEREFORE EXIST) may NOT be denied or abridged.

But please, I encourage you to continue to explain why that explicitly stated right doesn't actually exist.  I anticipate such discourse will come in handy for our future discussions of the 2nd Amendment.

A left wing theory? Was Justice Antonin Scalia and the majority decision a "left wing" theory when they ruled that, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”?

If state legislatures can legally select presidential electors without public input. Which means that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples’ interest. How is that constitutional and legal if you actually have a right to vote? At that point your right to vote would be denied or abridged? What are "various valid reasons" in that scenario? If a state legislature can "choose" to do that, what happened to your right to vote?


So you're calling information from the National Museum of American History (https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/right-to-vote) a nutjob claim from a random website?


It really doesn't even matter. This discussion was about voter ID. I listed many things that require ID in modern society. In layman's terms, specifically why shouldn't everybody be required prove their identity when voting?

Again: for electors for President!  Citizens DON'T have the Constitutional right to for for electors for President, in exactly the same sense that they DON'T have the right to vote on ratifying international treaties.  State legislatures MAY legally choose electors for President of the United States on a basis other than the vote of their citizens.

There is a difference between "not ALL citizens have the right to vote" (which is clearly true) and "there is no right to vote whatsoever" (which is not true).  For example, you believe that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but citizens who are incarcerated aren't allowed to keep and bear arms!  So does that right even exist at all?  (This example is particularly relevant because many of the groups you previously referenced are specifically advocating for the right of convicts to vote.)

There are rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution that nonetheless have legal restrictions placed on their exercise.  Voting is one of them.

You already proved your identity when you registered to vote.  (see: the FL website mentioned by ArtieChokePhin)

Unless you are also proposing that we completely eliminate ALL voting-by-mail, the result of voting ID laws is that people who are allowed to vote-by-mail don't have to show photo ID when casting their ballot, but people who are not allowed to vote-by-mail do have to.

It seems like you are arguing with the National Muesum of American History and many many other people who are more qualified than you on the subject.






You specifically brought up rights? What does any of that have to do with rights?

What has happened in The Forum over the last few years makes me a bit sad.  I used to really enjoy reading and participating in the "current events" threads here as they used to be thought provoking and sensible conversations between people with different thoughts on things.  But over the last few years, it has become just the same handful of people digging in their feet and making comments that are increasingly inflated and passed off as "facts" while arguing with others.  And both "sides" are equally guilty.  I could almost think up a current event topic and create an entire discussion, playing the parts of a handful of people here from both sides because everyone essentially just says the same things, cites the same alleged facts, etc etc regardless of what the topic is because everyone here has become so predictable in what they are going to say.  There are two or three "conservative posters who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and there are two or three of their counterparts from the liberal side who make ridiculous claims that don't have much validity and all of them are so dedicated to their party politics that it renders them incapable of having a dialog in which they actually consider what the other person is saying because they are too busy coming up with their "gotcha" rebuttal to have any interest in an actual exchange of ideas and consideration of those ideas.  That is why the same 8 or so people here are pretty much the only ones that post about current events/politics.  It is like they just keep saying the same things and the only thing that changes is the title of the thread.  I'm not slamming you guys, y'all are really just a microcosm of what our entire society has become.  Just a nation of people who think that whoever yells the loudest wins, no matter what it is that they are yelling.  I could start a thread titled "Which Is Better, Italian Food or Mexican Food" and by page 2, the discussion would be "Crazy Orange Hair Man Destroyed This Country" and "Crazy Joe Biden Is Going To Let Putin Annex The Country"

It's been going on for more than a few years. But then again, it's just entertainment. No one is really going to change each other's mind. What is your opinion Dolphster. Do you think that requiring voter ID is somehow unreasonable? Or do you think that it's reasonable? Why?

Oddly, it seems the Democrats had a much better case claiming the election was stolen in two thousand.

I'm sure if I were giving out bottles of water with labels on them that had a message which could be inferred that I was a Trump supporter, and thereby trying to curry favor for individuals to vote for Trump, YOU would have a problem with that.  It's all about trying to swing voters at a polling place by giving the voter something of value.

Yes, which is why I added a couple caveats in my response.



[/quote]
This doesn't sound much different than, "I don't know anyone who voted for Bush, therefore Kerry must have won."


Perhaps the circle of Republicans you personally know are part of the 47% of Republicans that believe Biden is the president.
[/quote]

C'mon it's COMPLETELY different than your example.  Your analogy is bullshit.  As for the second part of your response, I find it statistically absurd that less than 1% of my circle of Republican friends believe Trump is President, yet 53% of all Republicans believe that.  By that logic you could argue Trump won several of those States that he actually won.

I know your much smarter than this Spider.

What it would mean is that there are also people out there who don't know a single Republican that thinks Biden is "the true President right now."  I don't think that's absurd at all.

I don't know what this means.
I already concede that Trump won every state that he actually won.

I have no problem with existing laws that would already ban giving out a bottle of water with a candidate’s  name on it within 100 feet of a polling place. The problem with the law is it bans giving bottled water that doesn’t have a candidates name on it.

Fundamental the problem isn’t really the bottled water, but that in affluent communities the lines are less than 10 minutes while in poorer neighborhoods the lines can be several hours.  NOBODY should have to wait in line so long they get thirsty.   

The REPUBLICANS approach is rather than promoting ideas that people support to make it harder for poor people to vote.

Or just show up prepared with a big ass water bottle.

Bullshit.  Having lines that are 10 times longer in poor neighborhoods than in affluent neighborhoods should be immediately remedied.

Sure, but until then, bring a big ass bottle of water.

Also, is this nationwide or just a couple of places in Georgia? 

This is a solution in search of a problem.  If Lou was caught he could face 10 years in jail.  If successful he is extremely unlikely to alter any election.  Therefore he is extremely unlikely to try. 

This would be liking having a policy of requiring trick or treaters to prove their ages on halloween to prevent adults who Achondroplasia from fraudulently obtaining candy on halloween.  It would be extremely burdensome to prevent a nonexistent problem. 

The goal of these laws aren’t to prevent illegal voting (that is not a thing) it is to suppress legal voting.

I'm glad you ask, Maine.  And the question is definitely fair, because on the surface, there's nothing wrong with asking someone for proof of who they are.


Where I live, you have to verify your address, I believe.  And signature match under penalty of committing a felony, that you are who you say you are.  And the reason is, that, PRACTICALLY, that's enough.  Could your uncle find our you weren't going to vote and then go vote for you?  Maybe.  He'd have to commit a felony, fake match your signature, and even if it worked, he'd get one extra vote.  And that vote wouldn't be more likely to be attributed to any one candidate or ideology.  Even close presidential elections are determined by tens of thousands of votes in any given state.  You'd have to have unbelieve levels of fraud in one direction to even swing the closest of states.

More, importantly, there is no evidence that this is happening.  I'm not exactly up to date on my numbers, but its was like single digit cases over a decade.....something like that.

Simply put, this isn't a problem that needs solving.

BUT....

By trying to solve this non-problem and requiring certain types of IDs and not others, you can statistically disenfranchise voters of one political party.  This was done much more bluntly in the past with other kinds of disenfranchising laws, and it's usually aimed at black people.  Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfathers exceptions, etc.  This is just another decision in a long line of ways to make it less convenient for one social class to vote, because that will shave a percentage that can be thousands and thousands of votes.

It's not just "people who don't have a license".  It's people who lost their license and have a job that isn't favorable enough to let them get back to the DMV.  It's people who are broke and can't afford a replacement or they have unpaid tickets or something.  It's for people who just forgot their license that one day, but can't get time off of work to go back to vote tomorrow.

And it's not just the ID thing, but it's used in conjunction with other types of stuff: Trying to allow gun licenses as proof but disallowing student IDs as proof.  It's limiting hours so that crowded urban areas have longer lines.  It's reducing or making you jump through hoops to vote by mail, to better accommodate people with free time during the work week.

1.  Voter fraud is not a problem.
2.  By pretending to solve the problem, you make it statistically harder for one social class over another and this has a long history with race in America.

It is pretty widespread.  In my town I rarely encounter a line at all and even then it is always less than 5 minutes.  In urban areas you often see news stories of people waiting multiple hours and polling stations needing to stay open late to accommodate every one in line.  

As was pointed out to me from a black liberal ... this is one of the most racists things a person can say. To say minorities aren't competent enough to secure an ID is akin to calling them stupid and less intelligent than white people. White people do not hold a monopoly at the DMV.

From my own personal perspective I'd say to those who feel it is unnecessary because there is no problem then why are you fighting against it? It's not like it is a great unattainable burden to get an ID card for a legal resident and if it won't change anything then there is no harm done.

I've already listed many things in life that require ID that nobody complains about. The best they can do is say, "voter fraud is not a problem" and "voting is a right". My question is what does either of those 2 things have to do with requiring people to show voter ID?

I posted this earlier in the thread for those of you who haven't watched it. Basically it's urban black people's response to Democrats who think blacks are too stupid, poor, and/or incompetent to get an ID. Black people's response to what Democrats think about them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8aP55LlvCg)

It's funny watching these people say that "voter fraud isn't a problem". Getting an ID isn't a problem either, it's actually pretty much needed to normally function in today's society.

Bullshit.  It is not a matter of competency but of access.  The DMV in my area is not in the downtown, it is on the outskirts of the city.  The nearest bus stop is a mile away and would require changing buses multiple times to access from the urban areas that are home to most of those people who live in the city center and are carless.  The DMV’s convenient for people who own cars but inaccessible to those who would need it under a voter id law. Round trip by uber we are talking a $40+ poll tax.

It's not anyone else's responsibility that you don't have a car, transportation, or the time to take care of your personal business.

It's not me calling anyone stupid.  It's not about competency.  It's about socio-economics and access.  Statistically speaking, those are more likely going to be minorities.  And it's about a long, long history of the conservative party (Democrats before, Republicans now) using bullshit non-problems to make things harder for them.


There is harm done.  It's disenfranchising to one side more than the other.  This is not a problem.  Fraud isn't happening.  Republicans know it's not happening.  They aren't passing laws to fix a problem, because they know it isn't a problem.  Their hard on for passing these laws is because it will mean fewer votes for their opposition.

The slight burden voter ID laws impose don't outweigh a state's interest in preventing voter fraud. Are you guys saying voter ID laws are violating people's rights, unconstitutional, illegal, etc. I'm having a hard time understanding your argument besides, "it ain't fair". Which is totally subjective depending on your political views.

There's a reason these laws are only being passed now because the court gutted the VRA. Under the VRA, states weren't allowed to make these sorts of changes that seem benign at face value but in practice serve as a deterrent to voting.

Any single law or statute can seem benign. Or seem harmless. The problems become when you aggregate all the benign statutes and group them up with gerrymandering, and then toss in a bit of statistical analysis to figure out which voters certain laws affect more than others. That you get into a complicated structure of voter suppression.

If we had a voter ID law that also mandated free federal ID cards to every citizen, I think you'd have alot less issues with the law.  If you have a social security #, then you also get a federal ID card. Scan the card to vote in any district in the county you live in and you'd get the right ballot. Problem solved.

First off: I am under no impression that I am going to convince CF Dolfan or pondwater that Actually, Liberalism Is The Best Answer; that would be delusional.  My responses to diehard conservatives are towards two ends:

1) presenting a progressive counter-argument for the moderate reader who doesn't really follow politics, but is passively exposed to these kinds of right-wing arguments
2) giving ammunition to fellow leftists who have to deal with these kinds of right-wing arguments in other circumstances

That's it.  I don't think you can convince a dedicated partisan through debate.  If they ever change their mind, it won't be because of anything I say; it'll be on their own terms.

Second, I think the comparison you are making is unfair.  I personally consider myself a radical leftist (and I imagine Fau considers himself one as well), so I'm quite aware that my "ridiculous claims" do not represent mainstream liberalism.  In contrast, based on previous statements it seems that CF and pondwater consider themselves completely mainstream conservatives, and that their "ridiculous claims" are not only Totally Reasonable, but represent the silent majority of this country.

As I just recently said: what passes for radical partisan extremism on our side of the fence are the bog-standard vast majority of the movement on their side of the fence.

I consider myself a democratic socialist. On the European scale I'm a little left of center.  There's way farther left  places to be and I'm not there. On the American scale I guess I'd be radical on fox news, and progressive on msnbc. Probably a populist elsewhere. But in America anything even sorta kinda resembling a little socialism is all lumped together as full bore marxist communism. So the scale is a bit off from reality.

I'm not quite clear which side you're coming down on for this, but I can definitely explain one part of the equation that's missing.

The "tick" is passing laws that require photo ID to vote.
The "tock" is... immediately moving towards mass closure of DMV offices (https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html):

Facing a budget crisis, Alabama has shuttered 31 driver's license offices, many of them in counties with a high proportion of black residents. Coming after the state recently put into effect a tougher voter ID law, the closures will cut off access -- particularly for minorities -- to one of the few types of IDs accepted.

Tick tock. (https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-denies-politics-is-behind-plans-to-close-dmv-centers/article_135ba222-b4b3-11e0-95a3-001cc4c03286.html) Tick tock. (https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2018/08/28/texas-officials-aim-to-shutter-drivers-license-offices-in-black-hispanic-communities/)

Funny how this "the true bigotry is to assume that people need extra help and not a level playing field" argument never seems to be applied towards, say, lower tax rates on capital gains, or extra tax deductions for businesses, or tax exempt status for churches.

No, in THOSE situations we want to make things as easy as possible for the recipient!

If i had an uncle Lou, it may not swing the election but I would be pissed about it.

Voter fraud is not even close to a problem.  For every ONE person charged (not convicted, merely charged) with fraudulent voting of the kind that would be stopped by photo ID verification at the polling booth, tens of thousands of legitimate voters will be turned away at the polls.  The point is to reduce Democratic turnout.

Or, put another way:

(http://viperbeam.com/forum/massshootings_voterfraud.png)

That's just your opinion or more like liberal propaganda talking points. You still haven't given any actual legal reasons why ID shouldn't be required. All you've claimed is that voting is a right. Again, what does that have to do with it?

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/ (http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/)

Aliens and Voter Fraud
https://cis.org/Huennekens/Aliens-and-Voter-Fraud (https://cis.org/Huennekens/Aliens-and-Voter-Fraud)

If you don't think illegal immigrants are voting for president, think again
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/440136-if-you-dont-think-illegal-immigrants-are-voting-for-president-think-again (https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/440136-if-you-dont-think-illegal-immigrants-are-voting-for-president-think-again)

Illegal Voting – Some Uncomfortable Facts and Findings
https://themarketswork.com/2017/06/20/illegal-voting-some-uncomfortable-facts-and-findings/ (https://themarketswork.com/2017/06/20/illegal-voting-some-uncomfortable-facts-and-findings/)


Presenting some sort of ID will solve this.

 :All of those articles are of the same bogus report.  If even the rightwing mouthpiece such as the  WSJ won't run the rightwing talking point then you should be suspicious of its veracity.


And voter id laws would do absolutely nothing to stop the such a problem if it existed.  Voter id laws would prevent the mythical problem of someone voting for someone else.  But nothing to prevent the mythical problem of improper registrations.

I'm sure you are aware that a judge overturned the California assault weapons ban because the right to own a gun is a constitutional right. If requiring an ID to vote was unconstitutional then you'd have nothing to worry about. What's common sense for me isn't so common for you but we do have laws that we agree to abide by when we choose to be an American citizen.

Mass killings have happened with bombs, trucks, knives and even kool aide.  The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 and wounded hundreds more with fertilizer. It doesn't really matter the weapon if a person is crazy and wants to do it they will find a way.

Basically the US of A guarantees the right to own guns to protect ourselves because the people who wrote our laws had just fought a tyrannical government to gain freedom. No law can be placed to remove that right.  You can agree to accept it or leave for one of those countries you keep referring to that are doing it so much better than us. I keep hearing how socialism is so great yet everyone is running from socialism to come here and live in our dangerous and racist country that is overcome with toxic masculinity. Logically that makes absolutely no sense.

It is an unnecessary burden to voting that does virtually nothing to reduce the already-miniscule amount of voting fraud in the US.

If tens of thousands of legitimate voters will be prevented from casting their ballots due to a lack of approved photo ID, the onus is not on me to prove why photo ID should not be required to vote; the onus is on you to prove why disenfranchising that many legal voters is necessary.  And a couple dozen alleged cases of voter fraud out of hundreds of millions of votes cast is not anywhere close to sufficient justification.

You're always so vague with your positions, I wonder why LMFAO...

So you're not claiming it's illegal or unconstitutional. You're just claiming that it's a burden. Is that correct?

I'm not being vague at all.

Placing an unnecessary burden on the ability to exercise your rights (for example: your right to vote, as mentioned in several cited amendments) is itself unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

You may place an extra burden on the ability to exercise a right if that burden is judged to be necessary, but given that the rate of charged (again, not convicted, merely charged) cases of in-person voter fraud is significantly less than 0.00001%, requiring photo ID to vote does not meet the bar of a necessary burden.

Maine, just to clarify: I'm not saying that AL had too many or not enough DMVs before; I'm saying that following up the passage of a voter ID law with the immediate closure of dozens of DMV offices primarily in counties with high minority populations is too cute by half.  It's obviously no coincidence.

This is part of the problem: voters who are permitted to mail in their ballots do not have to present photo ID when casting their ballot.  And it's notable that no Republican politicians want to ban vote-by-mail; they just want to make sure that only deserving people can do it. I leave it to the reader as to whom will be deemed worthy.

I can't speak to ME, but in CA, the signature on your ballot has to match the signature on your voter registration form, not the signature on your driver's license.

Miniscule my ass.  If you only knew how widespread voter fraud has been and can actually be.  And this was before they had mail in ballots. 

Only military who are deployed overseas and U.S. citizens who have an established residence in a state but are overseas for whatever reason during the election time should be allowed to vote by mail.  Nobody else.  No exceptions.

You're talking in circles again. I can play that game too.

Banning so called "assault weapons" is an unnecessary burden to the right to bear arms that does virtually nothing to reduce the already small percentage of "assault weapon" deaths in the US.

The onus is not on me to prove why "assault weapons" should not be banned based on cosmetic features; the onus is on you to prove why disenfranchising that many legal gun owners is necessary..

So you don't just think that voter ID is unfair burden, you are actually claiming that voter ID laws are illegal and unconstitutional?

If only Trump's DOJ knew how widespread voter fraud has been, maybe they would have gotten a significant number of convictions to show for it!

In-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent.  Out of the last 500 million votes cast in federal elections, I don't think there's even been 100 convictions for in-person voter fraud (the kind of fraud that verifying photo ID would prevent).

...what?

What justification do you have to say that a US citizen with "an established residence" in Cleveland MAY NOT vote by mail from Cincinnati, or from Phoenix, but MAY vote by mail from Mexico?  That doesn't make any sense!

If you think voting by mail from outside the country(?!) is safe & secure enough to be allowable, every citizen INSIDE this country should be allowed to vote by mail with no excuse.

You make a strong argument for the protection of essential rights!

So since voter fraud is even less of a problem than violence from the types of guns designated as "assault weapons" in the 1994 law, after we have strictly regulated those (and other) kinds of semi-automatic firearms - adding a regrettable but necessary burden on the exercise of our constitutional rights in the name of public safety - we can then move on to any other regrettable but necessary burdens on our right to vote (in the name of election integrity).

I think that any legal obstacle judged to be an unfair and unnecessary burden on the exercise of our constitutional rights would be itself unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Now, do I think the Republican-appointed Supreme Court (as currently comprised) would rule that these voter ID laws are an unnecessary burden?  No, I do not.  So at the end of the day, it's constitutional (and legal) if they say it is.

Hell Spider, if you can't even explain how or why cosmetic features make a firearm more dangerous, then your argument falls flat on its face. If you want to ban something that restricts someone's rights, then you at least need a logical reason to do so.

They already have said voter ID is constitutional and legal.

(Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd, 553 U.S. 181, 128 [2008]) By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court upheld the law, concluding that the photo I.D. requirement was closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interests in preventing voter fraud. The slight burden the law imposed on voters' rights did not outweigh these interests, which the Court characterized as "neutral and nondiscriminatory."

That's why I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. Voter ID is legal, constitutional, and nondiscriminatory according to SCOTUS. You're welcome to your opinion. However once SCOTUS rules against your opinion, it renders your opinion wrong.

On the flip side, I don't hear many reasonable people on the right calling to end ID and background checks for firearm purchases because they have already been decided by the courts. We already have common sense firearm laws on the books that only need to be enforced. Now we need to enact common sense voting laws.

You should definitely educate us on this then... I'm assuming you have some mother lode of evidence that nobody else on the planet seems to have.

Of course you do...  ::)

In point of fact: sale and transport of ammonium nitrate-based fertilizer is now regulated due directly to the OKC bombing.

I also didn't want to let this gem pass without comment:

No, George W. Bush is not a "current Democrat."

The fact that you apparently define who is and is not a "Republican" solely by their level of fealty to Donald Trump is yet another reason why your claims of reluctant support for him ring so hollow.

In the hopes of ending this recurring tangent: features such as the ability to accept a telescoping stock do not themselves necessarily make a firearm more deadly.  These are features that are used as an indicator of the type of firearm that is usually more deadly in total with all features considered.  This is why the law in question regulated weapons with "two or more" of features from a specified list; not because adding a bayonet mount to a rifle with a threaded barrel immediately made it more deadly, but because the combination of those features were common to more deadly rifles.

You should be familiar with this kind of logic in regulation because we already see it all the time.  For example, there are many financial regulations that prohibit a combination of actions that are individually unremarkable (and legal), but can be done in concert to facilitate (say) money laundering.  This is also how laws against insider trading and other forms of corruption work: you have a list of indicators, and when there are multiple indicators present at once, it is taken to mean something greater than the individual components.

So looking at a list of indicators and saying, "What makes this one thing dangerous?  OK, then what makes this next one thing dangerous?" misses the point.  They are used in concert to indicate a more dangerous whole, which is exactly why two or more features were required from the list.

I didn't know you were such a strong advocate for abortion rights!  After all, SCOTUS ruled that access to abortion is a constitutional right many decades ago, rendering everyone on the right who opposed abortion wrong.  So why is it even a discussion?

Look no further than the 1997 City of Miami Mayoral Election.  And don't get me started on Chicago and Detroit.

That's the silliest thing that I've heard this year. A rifle could have all of those cosmetic features of a so called "assault weapon" and it is no more dangerous than a semi automatic hunting rifle because they functionally do the same thing.

We're not discussing abortion so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. But just to humor you, in my opinion I don't think abortions should be used as a form of birth control by irresponsible people. Otherwise, I really don't give a shit either way. Currently it's the law, so I'm good with it.  Furthermore, even though I disagree with the premise. I'm also OK with showing my ID and background check when I pick up my 9mm commander length 1911. Because it's the law.

Voter ID is legal, constitutional, and nondiscriminatory according to SCOTUS. All of which refutes your whole premise when you use the words illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory. The law was written and legally passed by state legislature and backed up by SCOTUS?  Just admit it, your side lost the fight, move on to the next battle. Now go ahead and send the "assault weapon" nonsense thru SCOTUS and let the chips fall where they may.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-voter-fraud-20170125-story.html

At the time, Mayor Joe Carollo was seeking a second term and faced a challenge from Xavier Suarez, the city’s first Cuban mayor, who had served in the 1980s and was waging a political comeback. That November, Suarez defeated Carollo in a runoff election. Yet something was amiss.

Carollo’s campaign, heeding tips from local political operatives, claimed that absentee ballots in the runoff were forged and even paid for by representatives of the Suarez campaign. An investigation found nearly 400 fraudulent absentee ballots were cast by, among others, dead people and felons.

So this one time, nearly a quarter-century ago, there were almost 400 (but: not quite 400) fraudulent absentee ballots in an election!  It is notable that they were absentee ballots, because absentee ballots would not be affected at all by a law requiring photo ID when voting.

From later in that article:

Indeed, Levitt recently conducted a comprehensive report into voter fraud that is widely cited by scholars. He found 31 credible instances between 2000 and 2014 of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast. He examined ballots from every federal election in that time frame.

Sounds about right.

So...the answer is "you really don't."

If 31 out of "over" a billion votes cast 23 years ago is your definition of a mother lode of evidence, then we aren't living in the same reality at all.

No wonder you still think Donald Trump is President...It's wishful thinking that you've wished for so much that you think it is actually real.

There are professionals out there that can help with that sort of thing. A nice comfy couch and let your feelings pour out...you'll be right as rain in no time.

Be well.  ;)

LMBO ... Hangs out with Democrats and votes Democrat would surely suggest being a Democrat. You know that whole walks like duck thing. RINO was term long before Trump came into office and for good reason. In fact it goes all the way back to days of Theodore Roosevelt. It was also very popular during the Clinton years when I was still voting Democrat.

You know it's funny. I just realized that this thread is such bullshit nonsense. First of all, let me know when they poll every Republican to qualify the "majority of Republicans" claim. Second, what was the battle cry of the Democrats when Trump won? "Not My President"

Might as well make a thread about how Democrats didn't think Trump was their president.

Easily explained...

Bush voted Democrat because, like most sane people not fearing for their jobs, he recognizes what a psychotic chronic lying whackjob that Trump was, is and forever will be.

Hanging out with Democrats...just means he bores easily with conspiracy conversations.

I've always hated this line and never use it.  I remember this going back to W. Bush and I hated it then, too. 

It's the same thing as the title of this thread though. Fringe whackjob extremists on both sides that deny reality. Claiming the real POTUS isn't your POTUS isn't any different from claiming the prior POTUS is really POTUS.

The obvious difference that you are intentionally disregarding is the FACT that there is a shit-ton of evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, but no evidence of any kind that there was any fraud in the 2020 election involved except for a few limited individuals.

Trump was never my president. He was a global embarrassment that damaged America's reputation every time he opened his mouth or touched a keyboard.

Ah, so now you think polling is not valid unless they poll every person that qualifies...?  That's an interesting change:

Didn't hear you saying that they needed to poll every American to qualify a "spike in disapproval of Obamacare."  I think I can guess why you were happy to accept that poll!

Random people on Twitter is not the same thing as a scientifically conducted poll.  The fact that a majority of Republicans stated that Trump is the true President right now in a poll by a reputable, professional polling company is what separates it from randos insisting that George Bush did 9/11, or that Obama is planning to invade Texas.

I mean, if I really wanted to nutpick, I would have posted links (https://twitter.com/Tylerjoelb/status/1402288748575002632) to a bunch of anti-vax Republicans insisting (https://twitter.com/Tylerjoelb/status/1402646586379878409) that the COVID vaccine turns you into Magneto.

Mod note -- I've deleted some personal attacks.

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

You're going back 8 years to quote me out of context on a topic that has nothing to do with the current topic, LMFAO.


The main difference is the premise of the two claims. My post from 8 years ago suggested that the results of the poll It was in addition to my prior post, which in fact turned out to be correct. It was bad for the Democrats in the next 2 elections.


Your post on the other hand smells of fake news clickbait and implies that over half of all Republicans in the country believe that Trump is still president. Which is obviously not even close to being a fact.

I wish football season would hurry up and get here.   LOL

Random whackjobs on twitter? I could be wrong, but I don't recall anyone here saying they thought Trump was still POTUS. We do however have this here:

I mean, if you want, I can play that game too and say Over half of adults ages 18-30 saw Trump's presidency as illegitimate (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/majority-young-americans-view-trump-illegitimate-president-poll-n735426). Hell politicians were even questioning Trump being president.

I'm waiting for you to proclaim Sunstroke, Rep. John Lewis, and over half of all adults aged 18-30 in the US as random conspiracy nutjobs. Because after all, Trump was in fact the legitimate POTUS of every legal US citizen. Unless of course you disagree with the previous statement.

Agreed.

I don't think "not my president" is fringe whackjobs.  I don't think that denial of facts, either -- I think it's just poor phrasing, meaning that the elected official doesn't represent your values -- kinda protest shorthand.

However, I think that it's just not productive.  I believe we're better off to try to own the bad seeds and correct them, rather than try to distance yourself from them.  It's like "don't blame me, I voted for XYZ".  ...like, who gives a shit, it's not about blame.  I want any politician regardless of party to make the country better.  There are a few cases where I'll root for political failure because I think it's better for the long term, like with social issue shit.

I can make a whole list of related stupid shit that both sides say:
- "If you don't like the stimulus money, send it back" is an example.

I don't find it hypocritical to be against welfare or unemployment or social security and then proudly accept it when you need it.  You've paid in, and it's what you're entitled to, for example.


As for Trump and Russia, I do think that what is probably correct -- Trump was legally elected president, I have no doubt of that.  There's a question of whether involvement (unsure whether him directly or those working on his behalf) with foreign powers was simply unethical or also illegal.  Either way, it doesn't mean he wasn't elected, it just might have meant that there were consequences to those actions.  It also showed that our system of government has holes when the very people who are overseeing these issues have vested interests in their own protection.  It exposed some problems that we need to address in lots of ways.

I'm very old school ... well compared to people today. I'm not a fan of Biden or Harris but they are my President and VP. If ever given the chance to meet them I would be respectful. Since social media brought idiots together we as a country do not respect people near enough in my opinion.

Same here.  I go with the "Salute The Rank, Not The Individual" route.  I think Jimmy Carter is the worst president in our history.  But if I had the chance to meet him I would refer to him as Mr. President and would tell him what an honor it is to meet him. And it would be sincere.  I can (and do) disagree with someone and still respect them. 

I think social media is a big part of why we as a country do not respect people near enough.  Being able to talk to someone like an a-hole behind the anonymity of a keyboard allows everyone to be a "tough guy".    But I think there are other contributing factors too.  Erosion of the family unit, lack of socialization in a large segment of youth because of video games, etc.  Also, having political leaders and societal "role models" speaking disrespectfully to people and being generally uncouth is part of it as well. 

Jimmy was a horrible president (my family supported him wholeheartedly) but he has been tremendous after leaving office. He has used his platform better than any other president in my lifetime.

 I don't have a problem with that comment.  I think he is a good man.  Just a horrible president. 

I would agree with you about respect for office, but I don't think I could be sincere with Trump.  I think he's a bad person and would scorch the Earth of America and Democracy for personal gain.

I would absolutely respect Bush, W, Reagan, and pretty much any GOP Leader...some that I intensely dislike, like Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnel, even.

I truly, honestly believe that Trump is a charlatan who is scamming his own supporters and they just haven't realized it yet.  I disagreed with Bush, but I thought he was out for what he thought was best for us.  I don't believe that about Trump for a second.  I think he's an opportunist and a literal, diagnosable egomaniac.

That doesn't explain the widespread democrat claim parroted by Jimmy Carter (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/jimmy-carter-trump-russia-interference/index.html), Hillary Clinton (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/30/hillary-clinton-calls-trump-illegitimate-president-sot-ip-vpx.cnn), Rep. John Lewis and over half of adults ages 18-30 who viewed Trump's presidency as illegitimate(il·le·git·i·mate: adjective - not authorized by the law) (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/majority-young-americans-view-trump-illegitimate-president-poll-n735426). But wasn't Trump the Legitimate POTUS as soon as he was sworn in?

So either all those people are ignorant and don't actually know the definitions of the words they use. Or they're just plain lying out of spite. Or???


Now back to the "Not my president" vs the title of this thread. Dave do you really believe that over half of all Republicans in the country actually think that Trump is still in office and running the country.

Or could they basically be saying, "Biden doesn't represent my values so I"ll claim trump as my president" (ie "not my president". It's basically the same thing, poor phrasing.

I definitely get that, Dave.  I was "meh" on most of Trump's policies (agreed with some, disagreed with some) but like you, I think he is a truly despicable narcissist as a human being.  I would feel like I needed a shower and disinfecting after meeting him, but I would force myself to be respectful.  I just wouldn't feel very good about myself afterwards.  lol 

I 100% agree with Dave. I don't necessarily think politics defines the person, and I dislike Trump not because of his politics, but because of his character, ethics and morals. That being said, i wouldn't be disrespectful to him (or really to anyone) without good reason. What i mean is i wouldn't slap him across the face like some french guy did to Macron the other day. But I avoided visiting the white-house (as a tourist) while he was president. Even tho i would have while Bush was president.

And the truth was heard throughout the land...or at least throughout TDMMC.

Hell, the other half of the country was saying that about the Clintons (specifically that evil succubus Hillary) long before Trump came around.  Many feel the same way about Hillary that you feel about Trump. Tit for tat I guess

Again, the other half of the country was saying that about the Clintons long before Trump came around. Many feel the same way about Hillary that you feel about Trump. Tit for tat I guess

Thank you for your wise words from mental institution. But you wouldn't know the truth if walked up and sat on your face. Just sayin 🥴🥴🥴

I have no problem with your take on that at all.  Totally get where you are coming from.  Of course it also works both ways.  I disagreed with most of Obama's policies, but I truly believe he cared about people and wanted to do what he thought was right.  I can respectfully agree to disagree with someone and Obama always came across as a good guy and someone I could talk sports over a beer with. 

The difference is that you thought that because you were force fed that shit by fox until it changed your eye color, while I think that because it is obvious to everyone with a fully functional brain that Trump is a psychotic whcackjob who cares nothing about anything but himself.

When you grow up, you may understand.

In the meantime, your mother says hello from the asylum...

With a straight face, can you say the same about Hillary? Most of the right including me can't

Not true. Hillary is much worse than Trump. That's why Trump won in a fair and legal election. Therefore becoming YOUR PRESIDENT because the law says so. Now run along and take your lithium, you're drifting again...

Well when you get done with her, put her back in the urn. Enjoy your jello salad you sick bastard 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

I wasn't a fan of Trump before he became president. In an odd exchange for me at least ... I only like him for his politics. I still think he is narcissistic ass but I'm ok with that as long as he supports the same policies as I. Regardless of why he is doing it or how many times he brags upon himself at the end of the day it's politics. I'd also bet most politicians are asses but are afraid to show it like him. 

Now I'm a huge fan of Ron DeSantis and am hoping he doesn't get caught up in the Trump circus like many are wanting. Ron is the more polished version of Trump. Same politics but in a much more professional version.

DeSantis 2024

Of course I can't.  Hillary was (and most likely still is) an asshole.  If she was the president (shudder) I would give her the appropriate respect that her position dictates, but only because as I mentioned earlier, I believe in "salute the position, not the person".    Interestingly enough, she lost to Trump for pretty much the same reason that Trump lost to Biden.  She was thoroughly unlikable and unlike most politicians, she isn't even capable of faking being likable. 

First off, I never said "random whackjobs."  There are lots of random non-whackjobs on Twitter (and elsewhere).
Second, I didn't claim anyone here thought Trump was the president right now; I cited a poll that indicated 53% of Republicans believe that to be the case.

If you want to criticize adults ages 18-30, be my guest.
The poll I cited indicated the beliefs of Republicans, so that's who I'm going to criticize.

Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples, here.

The poll I cited did not ask Republicans if Joe Biden is "not my President."  (Because if it did, that number would be astronomically higher than 53%.)  The poll asked who the true President of the United States is right now.  If you have evidence that Sunstroke, John Lewis, or someone else said in mid-2017 that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States right now, I encourage you to cite it.  Otherwise, your comparison is invalid.

This is not the first time you have complained about me citing a statement that is too old, which is a bizarre objection to make.  (And your citation of a favorable poll is extremely relevant to a discussion of the legitimacy of polling sample sizes.)

You can cite any statement I have ever made and I will either stand behind it, admit I was wrong and disavow it, or say I have changed my mind.  But what I WON'T do is object that I said it too long ago.  That's an extremely dumb excuse.

I know being a conservative requires one to ignore and/or discard history, but you're not supposed to be this blatant about it.

I third that.

Ummm, ok. Lets try this a different way.

Do you believe that 53% of all Republicans in the country believe that Trump is the sitting POTUS?

So do you stand behind this quote, admit you are wrong, or changed your mind?

Sounds reasonable to me.  And if we're talking about Republicans that vote (i.e. those that pay attention and care about politics), I think the number is probably even higher.

I absolutely stand behind that quote.

Placing an unnecessary burden on the ability to exercise your rights is indeed unconstitutional, and while SCOTUS has ruled that voter ID is not an unnecessary burden, I think that case was wrongly decided (which is not to say that it's not a legally binding outcome).  Casey Anthony was found Not Guilty, blah blah... the judicial system isn't perfect.

Now, your turn:

Do you think polling is valid without polling literally every person of the indicated class, or not?

You're just talking out your ass again, you have no proof of that claim.


And then we have this here. If you can go back 8 years. I can go back 10 years. Straight from the horse's mouth.
So which is it? According that post if you disagree with the SCOTUS, you are wrong. You disagree with SCOTUS voter ID ruling as constitutional, therefore by your own standards you are wrong.

Otherwise, if you still stand by your opinion on voter ID and claim that you are not wrong. Then your post from 10 years ago is wrong. Either way one of you two post are wrong since they contradict each other.

Now I'll ask again. Are you wrong Spider?

A poll only valid if it's accurate. I dispute the accuracy of that poll.

I fourth that

You asked me what I believe.
We are looking at a poll that says 53% of Republicans believe Trump is president right now, but you reject it with no proof to the contrary.

To clarify this point: voter ID has been judged to be a necessary barrier and is therefore currently constitutional.  This is why, in my post from last week, I separated "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional" and "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" instead of just saying "voter ID is unconstitutional"; if SCOTUS rules that it's not an unnecessary burden, then it's constitutional.  I was arguing what the interpretation of law should be, not what the interpretation of law currently is, as obviously voter ID laws currently exist on the books and have for many years.

We could play the same game with assault weapon bans, which are currently constitutional as per SCOTUS.

Why... because it didn't poll literally every Republican in America?
Because that was your original objection.

The onus is on you to prove the claim, not me to provide proof to the contrary. Furthermore, the only actual proof would be to accurately identify the specific percentage you are claiming out of 1) All Republicans or 2) a small sample of Republicans. Those are two different things.
 
What kind of silly used car salesman double talk shit is that?

If you're arguing what the interpretation of the law should be, you're saying that you think that the current interpretation is wrong. Therefore you disagree with the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law. And according to you, when it comes SCOTUS rullings, "If you disagree, you are wrong"

Therefore Spider, by your own definition, you are wrong.

I'm not familiar with that ruling. I didn't think they've taken up a case regarding "Assault Weapons". Please provide link

Are you implying that every poll is accurate and correct and that you agree with them?

Didn't seem to be the case when you claimed that 53% poll was inaccurate!

You have half of the quote.  I said that if SCOTUS says something is constitutional and you disagree, you are wrong.  I agree that voter ID laws have been ruled as constitutional, but SCOTUS has ruled that they are not an unnecessary burden, which I think is wrong.

Again, this was specifically why I separated "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional" and "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" instead of just saying "voter ID is unconstitutional."  The difference matters.

US vs. Miller (1939), in upholding the National Firearms Act, stated that only firearms with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" were protected by the 2nd Amendment, while DC vs. Heller (2008) stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

If you can forbid the carrying of firearms (including assault weapons) in "sensitive places," and you may impose conditions on the commercial sale of arms, that sounds to me like the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall very much be infringed.

As you like to say, don't answer a question with a question.
Why did you claim the 53% poll was "inaccurate"?  You originally claimed it was because they didn't poll every Republican.

The poll is inaccurate regarding your claims . The poll may be accurate regarding a small sample of Republicans. However, you need to provide proof that your claim  applies to all Republicans.

The polls about the 2016 election were much more extensive and basically said that it was almost impossible for Trump to win. Obviously, the polls were wrong? Polls are only valid if they eventually prove to be true. Otherwise they are wrong, just like you are most of the time. I'll be waiting for your proof that a majority of all Republicans believe that Trump is sitting POTUS.

According to you, the burden and constitutional part are tied at the hip. Therefore, since you believe that "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" and "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional". You're saying that voter ID is unconstitutional. You can't have it both ways.

There is no difference, you just play childish word games and talk stupid shit out of both sides of your mouth. If voter ID = unnecessary burden and unnecessary burden = unconstitutional. Then common sense would tell you that voter ID is unconstitutional. Your high estrogen levels and lack of character and integrity just won't let you admit you're wrong according to the standards you judge other people by.

You're wrong again, none of that is relevant. The SCOTUS has never taken up "assault weapon" bans. I'm glad you cited the Heller case though. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes? Sorry, but the answer is yes for "assault weapons"/semi automatic rifles. I highlighted the relevant parts below for you to better comprehend.





Because you can't attribute answers of a small random group to everyone. Your claim is different from what the poll actually proves.

I don't know if it's been mentioned but:

For this survey, a sample of 2,007 adults age 18+ from the continental U.S., Alaska,
and Hawaii was interviewed online in English. The sample includes 909 Democrats, 754 Republicans,
and 196 Independents.

So this survey of 2,007 people is supposed to be the sample for a population of 133 million registered voters.  I'm not so sure the sample size is large enough to truly represent what the study is claiming.

I read all that. And actually, wouldn't the sample size only be 754 since they were only claiming "Republicans believe Trump is President right now"? So Spider is claiming that the opinion of 754 people represent all Republicans. Just more extremist liberal propaganda and ridiculous claims from a self proclaimed "radical leftist". The radicals are the ones who cause most of the problems in the world trying to force their nonsense down other peoples throats.

Again, you didn't seem to have that problem when you cited a poll that said that Obamacare disapproval was spiking.  In fact, the number of respondents to the poll you cited was 1,006 (https://web.archive.org/web/20131126213925/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/disapproval-of-obamacare-spikes-in-new-poll/): barely half of the 2,007 respondents in the poll I cited in the OP.  But you didn't care about the number of respondents then, because you agreed with the poll's conclusions!

I love how every time conservatives tell this story, Trump's 2016 odds get worse.  Everyone said he had zero chance to win!  The day of the election, 538 gave Trump a 28.6% (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) chance of winning, which is "almost impossible" if you're really bad at math.

Furthermore, the 2020 polls that said that Trump was going to lose were... right.  Same with the 2012 polls that said Romney was going to lose.  

I think we both are quite aware that voter ID laws exist and are currently in place.  But unconstitutional laws are illegal and not in place.  So either you believe that I was claiming that voter ID laws don't exist because they're unconstitutional, or I was making some other argument.  I've tried to explain what that other argument is, but apparently you reject that idea.  Fine.

But let's talk about what I'm NOT doing: I'm NOT saying, "This quote is from too many years ago, therefore it shouldn't count."
Which is what you like to do.

As I mentioned: Heller specifically says that the government may restrict the carrying of firearms in "sensitive" areas and regulate their commerce.  That doesn't sound like "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to me.

On a side note, anyone who claims that the 2nd Amendment is intended to facilitate protection from the government is a nutjob.  There is no basis in law for that claim, and anyone who tries to exercise that "right" will be arrested and/or killed.  That's neo-confederate wishful thinking and nothing more.

In all the political discussions that have taken place on this forum, and all the polling that has been cited, I can't remember another time when someone said, "I don't know if this poll had enough respondents for my liking."

I mean, if you honestly believe that 2000 people is not enough for a viable poll, then fine... but this is a weird time to unearth that objection.  The timing makes it seem like a way to avoid a conclusion one finds distasteful.

God damn, will you and Pondwater just get a room already.  lol

I think most polls are bullshit anyway.

I posted that poll to highlight the fact that the Democrats MAY have problems in the next elections. I never said that everyone disapproved of Obamacare. Which is what you're doing with this poll.

All of which proves that polls aren't consistently reliable in their conclusions. Might as well flip a coin. Also, only 754 of the people in your poll were Republicans. The opinions of the rest of the respondents don't apply. And I'm bad at math, Jesus Christ, fucking hilarious.....

Quit playing word games, you're making yourself look silly. We can fix this real easy with 2 simple yes or no questions:

Do you think that voter ID is a burden?
Do you disagree with SCOTUS decision on voter ID?

Please quote me where I ever said that? You're wrong again. I was highlighting the fact about how a desperate insecure self proclaimed "radical leftist" spends his time scrolling through 8 years of someone's posts to avoid being wrong. That's sad.

1) Yes.
2) Whether it's a burden?  Yes.
Whether it's constitutional?  No, because SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional.

So you were pointing out that you don't how search functions work, and you think I have to scroll through 8 years of posts (which would take a long time!) to find a previous quote.  That clarifies things!

I also find it pretty hilarious that you're accusing me of being desperately insecure... while citing posts from a discussion that you Totally Didn't Participate In under one of your multiple prior accounts that were banned.  No, that was someone else.

I never used the word "everyone," or even "all Republicans."  It might be implied... but no less so then when you implied Democrats might have a problem among all voters in the upcoming election, based on a poll of 1,006 people.

This would have been useful insight when you were citing polls about Obamacare disapproval!

And of those 754 Republicans, 53% said that Trump is the true President of the United States right now.

Please tell me that you are not trying to claim that 1006 people give you a totally valid result worth citing as evidence, while 754 people give you a meaningless result that must be ignored.

We're talking about "assault weapons". NOT carrying of firearms in "sensitive" areas and regulating their commerce. Your post is invalid.

Nutjob? He's a constitutional law professor. And who the hell are you? Oh yeah, you're a self proclaimed "radical leftist".

Yeah, who would need protection from a government? Maybe ask the all citizens killed by Germany, Cambodia, Russia, Armenia, and other countless governments around the world. More people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by all in the wars combined within the same time frame.

Also, isn't that what happened when we split from England? How many were killed and/or arrested in that war? But yet we're still here in the greatest country in the world afforded the right to sit here and argue about it on the internet due to those "nutjobs".

"Assault weapons" are still firearms, and therefore subject to all the infringements I listed.

I'm sure there were many well-educated Confederates.  They were still nutjobs.

No government - including ours - includes a legal provision explicitly intended to facilitate insurrection.  That's ridiculous.

Let's see if any of the people who tried to overthrow the government on 1/6 can successfully invoke the 2nd Amendment in arguing that the founding fathers gave them the right to depose tyrants.

I'm surprised that I have to tell you this, but the American Revolution was illegal under British law.  Now, that doesn't matter if you win, but it certainly does matter if you lose... as the Confederates found out.  They tried using the same appeal to 1776 that you are, but since they lost their war, it didn't work out for them.

I'm a fan of the stripper pole.

Ok, you think it's a burden? Well, according to your earlier post. If something is a burden it --------->is itself unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. Those are your words, own them.
I don't even think you even believe half the silly shit you say. You just want your participation trophy 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

INVALID NONSENSE!

The Democrats did have a problem in the election. In hindsight, I was right.

My poll backed up my claim. Let me know when your poll provides conclusive evidence of your claim that over half of all Republicans in the country believe that Trump is the sitting POTUS?

Again, my opinion was proven correct. I suggested that some politicians might have a hard time in the elections. You're categorizing millions of citizens over the opinion of 400 people. Or maybe it's just because you disagree with their politics?

Just to show I'm not picking on pondwater: you did cite a poll on Reagan's presidential ranking (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=24100.msg333317#msg333317), and another poll (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=22600.msg306852#msg306852) on Obama's approval rating.

Let's be honest here Pond, if you think you can compare what would happen during an insurrection now with the Revolutionary War you are mistaken. Just ask the people involved in Ruby Ridge and Waco how much chance they stood. This is coming from someone who used to think they had a shot too. The federal government is even taking it easy in those instances.

Sorry, not even close.

The poll was about Obamacare disapproval, NOT Democratic election prospects.  (The equivalent would be if I said, "53% of Republicans think Trump is the current president, therefore I think Democrats will do well in 2022.")

You may have noticed that in the time since that poll was taken, Republicans gained control of all three branches... and failed to repeal Obamacare, which is still the law of the land today.

So objectively, according to results, your cited poll was wrong (by your standards).

Does that mean you think that requiring ID to buy a firearm is a burden? Are you concerned about all those poor minorities who don't have access to get ID to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Minorities are disproportionately affected. I'll be waiting for your support in favor of a reversal in that law.
 
A self proclaimed "radical" calling other people "nutjobs". Fucking classic, you can't make this shit up LMFAO....

You're right, that's ridiculous. So you're proposing that (hypothetically) the citizens of an evil government like one of the ones I mentioned earlier, should just get in line to the gas chamber or firing squad?

Dramatic much?

Well, I would assume that the goal isn't to lose.

:D

In the first post I literally said "to stir the pot."  Also people's opinions can change greatly since 2014 and 2016.  Gravedigging doesn't change my stance, I think polls are bullshit even the one's from my own posts 5 and 7 years ago.

Nope, since I believe the right to keep and bear arms without infringement is limited solely to members of a well-regulated militia.

The difference is that self-described "radical conservatives" essentially don't exist.  Every one of you, no matter how radical, delusionally thinks you represent the silent majority.

Well, first of all, the American colonists didn't need a guarantee of their right to bear arms to secede from the most powerful government on the planet.

But if we're talking about today: unless your government guarantees you the right to keep and bear tanks and rockets, it won't make a difference.  Ask any Palestinian how much difference a semi-automatic rifle makes in securing their freedom.

Apples and Oranges. If any sizable amount of US citizens were involved in such a situation it would be more akin to one of the many never ending civil war type situations around the world since WWII. A sizeable well armed civilian force is harder to beat than an army. And the US has (maybe) the biggest and best armed civilian populations in the world. Kind of funny that US government and military is always intervening in other peoples civil wars and would probably have to beg for help in their own civil war

As we can see from the internment of lawful Japanese-American citizens, the 1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, etc.: if you are the wrong kind of people, the number of guns you have won't make a difference, and the general public will applaud the government's use of force.

As we can see from Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the Capitol invasion: if you are the right kind of people, you can invade and take over without firing a single shot.

It's not about firearms, it's about political power.

The point is that requiring an ID to buy a firearm disproportionately disenfranchises minorities. You know, since IDs for black people are so hard to get. Don't black people equally deserve to exercise their constitutional 2A right?  You know, just like voting? If your views on people's rights and equality were congruent, the same argument would apply. My view to is either require ID for both or don't require ID for either either one. You just want to pick and choose like a little kid.

I would assume that people who advertise themselves as a self proclaimed "radicals" would have more problems due to lack of numbers. You're an abnormal bunch.

Is it over? Is the US intervening? Do those people hate each other? Whole different type situation. 

Political power, I totally agree. In my opinion, the best strategy in a hypothetical civil war. The capital would probably be taken from within by a majority of politicians of either side or both sides of the aisle . At that point every citizen would have to pick a side.

That thought process is delusional. I'm just sorry.

And even then private firearms would be an almost nonexistent factor.  The support of the joint chiefs of staff would be the deciding factor. 

Tell that to all the other countries that have been in endless civil wars. Just because you have control of the government doesn't mean you won. As long as a certain percentage of the population doesn't want that government there would be guns involved. It's amusing to see people think that the US is immune to things that happen in the rest of the world. Statistically, a person born in the past 100 years had a better chance getting killed by their own government than in a war against another country.

I'll ask again. Hypothetically, If the US government went down the path of one of the aforementioned evil countries, what would you do? Would people just get in line to the gas chamber or firing squad? Would you?

What's delusional about it? Unless you think our government is too big to fail then it's a reality. History is full of societies and armies that were too big to fail and did just that. The biggest question is many liberals wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment for the same reasons as conservatives so it would be interesting to see which side they landed on if that was in danger of being taken away.

Even Trump admits he didn't win ... He said this yesterday.

We were supposed to win easily, 64 million votes,' said Trump. 'We got 75 million votes, and we didn't win ...

It just is flat out delusional. No matter how you slice it the two sides would not be playing the same game. The Air Force alone has enough firepower to take care of the problem of an organized armed civilian uprising and they wouldn't even have to put military personnel in the way of harm.

I think there's merit to what CF is saying.  I mean, sure, the Air Force could and would take out any organized units without a problem.

But if it was just random people, operating like insurgents, within a population, it'd be very hard to root it out with traditional bombs.  It would operate like a terrorist force: assassinations, bombings, instability, etc.

There's no way you could rise up like the Confederacy or anything, but if 25% of the country was willing to fire on the opposition from their house and you didn't know who was who, it'd be really hard to root that out.

So you're saying you'll take the gas chamber or firing squad?

I think if the US were to devolve to that point I'd rather be dead than to be around to witness it anyway. 

But Pond isn't talking about pockets.Pond is specifically saying a sizeable amount of civilians in a civil war. I'd be happy to address ground troops overpowering gorilla forces as well. First of all most of them are stupid enough that their electronic footprint would have them monitored and targeted before they even got off the ground. Any such uprising would be so far behind technologically they don't stand a chance. These historical examples they want t bring up consist of people fighting with sticks and stones basically.

Is that what I said?

First of all these hypotheticals will not be seen by any of us so let's not take it too seriously.

Oh I dunno, a bunch of high school kids defeated the Ruskies and the Cubans when they invaded the US in 1984 in Red Dawn.  :)   "Wolverines!"   

Actually, that's a very big part of it. The sizeable amount of civilians would be spread throughout the country in pockets and mixed in with everyone else.

Yeah, how did Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan work out? Or maybe any of the other numerous civil wars we've gotten involved in for no reason? Maybe if something did happen here, maybe some other countries would get involved.


No, you haven't said anything because you refuse to answer a simple question. Sounds like you're the one taking it too serious.

Those countries don't have (BY FAR) the largest and most powerful military in the world.

Can you even name a single nuclear power that has had the government overthrown by armed civilians?  I can't.

Well, when a society goes down the road of one of those evil countries, the first thing that happens is thunderous applause from the citizens.  I keep citing this example and no one ever seems to address it, but when jackbooted government thugs came to snatch lawful Japanese-American citizens out of their homes, other Americans were clapping and cheering.  And in that situation, your choice is not whether or not you voluntarily get in line to the gas chamber... it's whether you get to see your wife and children gunned down, killed in an explosion, or burned to death after you fire on the law enforcement that has come to haul you off to the camps.

And this is not some far-bygone history of ancient depravity.  It was only a few years ago that when people would come to our border to legally apply for asylum in accordance with lawful international treaties, our government would steal their children and then deport them.  Again, this was met with wild applause from half the country.

So I have very little interest in these hypotheticals about uprising against evil tyrants.  When evil tyrants arrive, at least half of the country will be feverishly cheering them on, and anyone foolish enough to raise a handgun in opposition will be reviled as terrorists, as they are utterly wiped out with the full force of the state.

Hopeful for foreign interference against your own country, I love the patriotism of the new conservatives.

As f3answering your question I'll spell it out since your only point in any conversation is, "why won3you answer my question that isn't a point you were makin3anyway."

#1 your hypothetical will never happen but if it  did I would not just jump in li e for a gas chamber.
#2 I  recognize whatever choice of actions I took, trying to defeat the modern United StTes military would not end in victory for my side.

I'm not going to fix my typos.  In a dark bar on my phone.