ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 1st amendment issues , aclu

Reply
Old 12th March 2019, 12:00 AM   #121
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,269
HR 1 is a power grab. Democrats want to give the electorate the power of voting and have all votes of legal citizens count. It violates how Republicans think elections should occur.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 04:12 AM   #122
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,574
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
No, I assume it would be the candidates and/or the parties themselves.


The sponsors of the bill are all candidates. (Well, they were, and the majority of them will be again.)


They're voting to give themselves other people's money.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 04:22 AM   #123
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,269
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The sponsors of the bill are all candidates. (Well, they were, and the majority of them will be again.)


They're voting to give themselves other people's money.
While limiting money that can come from corporations and the wealthy to themselves.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 06:01 AM   #124
TofuFighter
Master Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,320
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Free speech analysis of the monstrous power grab

The democrats will gut the right to free speech and slap you in the face with an insipid name while doing it.
TBD, can you please explain why Mitch McConnell, and now you, are referring to this as a 'power grab'.

McConnell says in an op-ed (that I cannot access due to Wapo paywall) “House Democrats won’t come to the table and negotiate to reopen government, but they’ve been hard at work angling for more control over what you can say about them and how they get reelected,” “They’re trying to clothe this power grab with cliches about ‘restoring democracy’ ... but their proposal is simply a naked attempt to change the rules of American politics to benefit one party.”

Which rules of politics is he referring to, and exactly what power is being taken away from the Republican Party here?
TofuFighter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 06:12 AM   #125
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
TBD, can you please explain why Mitch McConnell, and now you, are referring to this as a 'power grab'.

McConnell says in an op-ed (that I cannot access due to Wapo paywall) “House Democrats won’t come to the table and negotiate to reopen government, but they’ve been hard at work angling for more control over what you can say about them and how they get reelected,” “They’re trying to clothe this power grab with cliches about ‘restoring democracy’ ... but their proposal is simply a naked attempt to change the rules of American politics to benefit one party.”

Which rules of politics is he referring to, and exactly what power is being taken away from the Republican Party here?
The makeup of the FEC for one, take a gander at it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:16 AM   #126
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,485
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
well, I gotta hand it to you, you are showing us all what's what by absolutely refusing to discuss anything remotely resembling the thread topic, the various links or anything else other than TBD.

Pretty clever strategy!

smfh
Indirect inks and vagueness on steroids results in no soup bone for you.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:43 AM   #127
Worm
Illuminator
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dundee
Posts: 3,020
Just for laughs, some more quotes from the ACLU statement.

Quote:
There is a lot to like about the bill.
Quote:
there are provisions within the bill that, while well-intended, are overly broad and vague.
Quote:
all of this can be fixed through targeted amendments aimed at tightening the broad and vague language in these provisions and addressing the First Amendment concerns.
Sounds really scary.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:50 AM   #128
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
Just for laughs, some more quotes from the ACLU statement.

Sounds really scary.
Just for laughs, look up what cherry picking means, because the bill was not passed out the House with the amendments that the ACLU said would save it from being Unconstitutional.

As such, actually scary.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:10 AM   #129
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,881
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Just for laughs, look up what cherry picking means, because the bill was not passed out the House with the amendments that the ACLU said would save it from being Unconstitutional.

As such, actually scary.
"Overly broad and vague" is not that scary. There are far scarier descriptors.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:15 AM   #130
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
"Overly broad and vague" is not that scary. There are far scarier descriptors.
Like unconstitutional?

tell you what, if you get arrested based on an "Overly broad and vague" law, I will be the first one in the court room declaring that it is not that scary and that there are scarier things.

The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:34 AM   #131
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,881
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Like unconstitutional?

tell you what, if you get arrested based on an "Overly broad and vague" law, I will be the first one in the court room declaring that it is not that scary and that there are scarier things.

Scariness of unconstitutional laws is not uniform.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:44 AM   #132
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,070
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The makeup of the FEC for one, take a gander at it.
Nope, not until you read it and explain why you think it's an issue. Why should we bother to go out and analyze these things for you when you are too lazy to do it yourself.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:46 AM   #133
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Scariness of unconstitutional laws is not uniform.
And no one said they were...

10 points for Griffindore
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:48 AM   #134
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Like unconstitutional?
That reminds me, Trump asked the Senate to ignore the constitution today.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:50 AM   #135
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,595
Well, I for one am utterly terrified that the ACLU does not absolutely love every facet of the bill and wants the parts it doesn't love to be fixed so it can love the whole thing unreservedly.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:50 AM   #136
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,881
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
And no one said they were...

10 points for Griffindore
I didn't say someone said they were. It is a related point. In the realm of unconstitutional laws, which we were discussing, broad and vague remains low on my list of scary descriptors.

What is this stupid tendency to assume every statement is intended as a full refutation of a previous statement? It makes no sense.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 12th March 2019 at 08:52 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:51 AM   #137
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,595
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That reminds me, Trump asked the Senate to ignore the constitution today.
That's a daily ocurrence. We're numb to it now.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:51 AM   #138
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,717
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Nope, not until you read it and explain why you think it's an issue. Why should we bother to go out and analyze these things for you when you are too lazy to do it yourself.
I have noticed that as well.

Sometimes he expects other people to find the data to support the points that he is trying to make.

Which, to say the least, is a rather odd way for one to convince someone else of some radical new idea.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 08:58 AM   #139
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I didn't say someone said they were. It is a related point. In the realm of unconstitutional laws, which we were discussing, broad and vague remains low on my list of scary descriptors.

What is this stupid tendency to assume every statement is intended as a full refutation of a previous statement? It makes no sense.
Well, you see, Bob, there is a tendency to assume that that a statement has something to do with what is under discussion, and not just random musings. Put perhaps it is wrong for us to search for meaning, and it is better to see your posts as something more profound than mere non sequitors.

SP: HR1 is Unconstitutional!
BTC: there are worse things than being Unconstitutional, like the impending heat death of the entire universe.
SP: Good point!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 09:01 AM   #140
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,070
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Just for laughs, look up what cherry picking means
LOL we spend 4 pages telling you that you need to explain what parts you think are an issue and why. Naturally you refuse but still think you are entitled to whine when people discuss the "wrong parts".
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 09:03 AM   #141
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,881
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Well, you see, Bob, there is a tendency to assume that that a statement has something to do with what is under discussion, and not just random musings. Put perhaps it is wrong for us to search for meaning, and it is better to see your posts as something more profound than mere non sequitors.

SP: HR1 is Unconstitutional!
BTC: there are worse things than being Unconstitutional, like the impending heat death of the entire universe.
SP: Good point!
We didn't discuss worse things. The subject was scariness. I didn't bring up the qualities of scariness. Also, scariness would probably not be the prime factor in a measure of badness such that we could call things worse.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 09:05 AM   #142
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
We didn't discuss worse things. The subject was scariness. I didn't bring up the qualities of scariness. Also, scariness would probably not be the prime factor in a measure of badness such that we could call things worse.
excellent point, I am duly chastised and humbled

SP: HR1 is Unconstitutional!
BTC: there are worse scarier things than being Unconstitutional, like the impending heat death of the entire universe.
SP: Good point!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 09:07 AM   #143
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,881
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
excellent point, I am duly chastised and humbled

SP: HR1 is Unconstitutional!
BTC: there are worse scarier things than being Unconstitutional, like the impending heat death of the entire universe.
SP: Good point!
Someone else mentioned scary things. Your statement makes it appear that I introduced the concept to the discussion. I was also still limiting it to scary unconstitutional things

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 12th March 2019 at 09:08 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 09:07 AM   #144
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That reminds me, Trump asked the Senate to ignore the constitution today.
It's only bad if the Democrats/liberals/leftists do it. TBD has shown that it is a-ok if Trump or Conservatives ignore the constitution.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 09:15 AM   #145
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
It's only bad if the Democrats/liberals/leftists do it. TBD has shown that it is a-ok if Trump or Conservatives ignore the constitution.
It's only good if the Democrats/liberals/leftists do it. Shalamar has shown that it is a-ok if the democrat party guts the constitution, which is the actual subject of the thread.

Not kidding whataboutism is about the worst argument that there is, but the only 'argument' the leftists seem to be able to come up with.

Scary
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 10:20 AM   #146
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Hilarious and educational thread where Dan Crenshaw wrecks Joe Kennedy regarding the myriad problems with HR1

‘Even the ACLU opposes it’!

Leftists to ignore the discussion because "vague" or something in 3...2....1.....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 10:29 AM   #147
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
That's a daily ocurrence. We're numb to it now.
He was more direct about it this time. I'd like to hear TBD's thoughts on that. Ahem.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 10:38 AM   #148
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,574
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Leftists to ignore the discussion because "vague" or something in 3...2....1.....
Because "here is s link" isn't a discussion.


ETA:. And Dan Crenshaw's comments in your link were both wrong and stupid.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 12th March 2019 at 10:41 AM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 10:58 AM   #149
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,485
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hilarious and educational thread where Dan Crenshaw wrecks Joe Kennedy regarding the myriad problems with HR1

‘Even the ACLU opposes it’!

Leftists to ignore the discussion because "vague" or something in 3...2....1.....
Regarding your bewilderment when I rejected indirect links... this is another prime example.

The page lacks substance. The writer, like you, references ACLU commentary without actually quoting what the ACLU said, and gets his undies in a bunch about the proposed legislation without quoting the offending text. In other words, just another bloviator on the internet echoing the right wing echo chamber.

Vague bloviation echoing vague bloviation echoing vague bloviation. Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:00 AM   #150
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Regarding your bewilderment when I rejected indirect links... this is another prime example.

The page lacks substance. The writer, like you, references ACLU commentary without actually quoting what the ACLU said, and gets his undies in a bunch about the proposed legislation without quoting the offending text. In other words, just another bloviator on the internet echoing the right wing echo chamber.

Vague bloviation echoing vague bloviation echoing vague bloviation. Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him?
Worth clarifying:

HR1 enables ballot harvesting via mandatory no-fault absentee ballots and by not outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. Dems rejected our amendment to HR1 that would make it illegal. It should be illegal bc it allows fraud like we saw in #NC09.

Just shaking my head at this point at the whining about links that contain actual substantive analysis.

So easy to hand wave away something as vague, so hard to actually address the points actually made.

Oh well, I tried.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 12th March 2019 at 11:02 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:01 AM   #151
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,574
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post

eta: YAY! You said something, you interacted with the link, and the positions taken therein. Now I ask you, why are they wrong and stupid?

EXCITED!
Because Crenshaw said that the recent fraud iin nc09 would be legalized by this bill. That's hogwash. In fact, it is so far wrong that it goes all the way to stupid. Are we really supposed to believe that H R 1 makes it legal to sign someone else's absentee ballot?

Posting that link, and praising its contents, really weakens your position.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:06 AM   #152
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Worth clarifying:

HR1 enables ballot harvesting via mandatory no-fault absentee ballots and by not outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. Dems rejected our amendment to HR1 that would make it illegal. It should be illegal bc it allows fraud like we saw in #NC09.

Just shaking my head at this point at the whining about links that contain actual substantive analysis.

So easy to hand wave away something as vague, so hard to actually address the points actually made.

Oh well, I tried.
You didn't really, though. You ignored everything else and focused on a single point, ignoring the entire rest of the bill.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:09 AM   #153
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Because Crenshaw said that the recent fraud iin nc09 would be legalized by this bill. That's hogwash. In fact, it is so far wrong that it goes all the way to stupid. Are we really supposed to believe that H R 1 makes it legal to sign someone else's absentee ballot?

Posting that link, and praising its contents, really weakens your position.
"HR1 enables ballot harvesting via mandatory no-fault absentee ballots and by not outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. Dems rejected our amendment to HR1 that would make it illegal. It should be illegal bc it allows fraud like we saw in #NC09."

From the link. Seems like he specifically addressed the problem and the circumstances that permitted it to happen.

It is odd, that by failing to actually address what he actually said you really weaken your position.

Crenshaw; there was fraud in NC, here's how to fix it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:11 AM   #154
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
From the link. Seems like he specifically addressed the problem and the circumstances that permitted it to happen.
Like you, however, he seems to ignore the rest of the bill or what the ACLU actually said about it.

Dishonest, both of you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:20 AM   #155
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,151
No fault absentee ballots leads to fraudulently filling in empty spaces on ballots as happened in NC09? Wow, Dan Crenshaw is a dishonest idiot for making that claim. 27 states plus DC currently have no fault absentee ballots.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 11:31 AM   #156
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,485
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Worth clarifying:

HR1 enables ballot harvesting via mandatory no-fault absentee ballots and by not outlawing the practice of ballot harvesting. Dems rejected our amendment to HR1 that would make it illegal. It should be illegal bc it allows fraud like we saw in #NC09.

Just shaking my head at this point at the whining about links that contain actual substantive analysis.

So easy to hand wave away something as vague, so hard to actually address the points actually made.

Oh well, I tried.
However you're requiring me to take Kevin Bacon's Dan Crenshaw's word on this. No sale.

Mind you, I'm glad to take in third party opinions so long as I have the key facts in hand, and so long as the third party knows **** from shinola.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 12:15 PM   #157
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
However you're requiring me to take Kevin Bacon's Dan Crenshaw's word on this. No sale.

Mind you, I'm glad to take in third party opinions so long as I have the key facts in hand, and so long as the third party knows **** from shinola.
No actually I am not, you see skeptics can do things like evaluate a claim and even research it if they want!

For example, you can look and see if the act outlaws ballot harvesting (it doesn't) and then you would not have to take anyone's word for it at all.

But we all know that it is so much easier for you to not do that, and rather just hand wave everything that is posted, because day that ends in y.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2019, 07:49 PM   #158
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,574
Here's what Crenshaw said:

Originally Posted by Dan Crenshaw, in a quote provided to us by The Big Dog
You do realize your bill #HR1 would actually make that kind of fraud in #NC09 LEGAL. Right?
Here's what H.R. 1 actually says about ballot harvesting:

Originally Posted by H. R. 1
_





For people who don't know the term, "ballot harvesting" is the process of using third parties to collect absentee ballots and deliver them to election authorities for counting. It's perfectly legal in some states. It is not legal in others. Although "ballot harvesters" were involved in the North Carolina election fraud, the "harvesting" itself was perfectly legal. H.R. 1 does not address ballot harvesting. It does not make it legal. It does not make it illegal. It does not mandate it. It doesn't do anything at all having to do with ballot harvesting. Crenshaw is lying. TBD is passing on a lie.


Moreover, the fraud in NC09 was not ballot harvesting. The fraud was in altering the harvested ballots. H.R. 1 does not make that legal, or even LEGAL, as Dan Crenshaw put it, and anyone who believes that HR 1 would make such fraud LEGAL is a fool.

ETA: After further review, I'm not sure whether or not the ballot harvesting itself was legal in North Carolina. It is legal in some states. I don't know whether or not it was legal in NC. From some news reports, it appears that it was not legal, but they didn't use the term "ballot harvesting", and they were focusing on other aspects of the fraud there, which was that the criminals, who ought to be locked up for a very long time, actually marked or signed the ballots themselves. At any rate, H. R. 1 would not make ballot harvesting LEGAL, and it would not make filling out someone else's ballot LEGAL.

It's a bad bill, in my humble opinion, but I would rather discuss it truthfully rather than pass along lies.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 12th March 2019 at 07:59 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 09:40 AM   #159
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,070
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hilarious and educational thread where Dan Crenshaw wrecks Joe Kennedy regarding the myriad problems with HR1
Neither is posting in this thread so why should I care what either of them think, and even if I cared why would I accept the word of a sheep like you as to who had the better of the discussion?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2019, 09:55 AM   #160
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,070
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Further it is another example of citations to external sources
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/citation

What definition of "citation" are you using?

"A summons to appear in court. eg ‘a traffic citation'" doesn't seem to fit

"A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work." Again no, since you neither quote nor paraphrase anything in the link. Also, this type of citation only hold value if the source being cited is a legitimate authority, which again doesn't fit.

"A mention of a praiseworthy act in an official report, especially that of a member of the armed forces in wartime." Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You're concept of "citation" is that you are praising someone who you feel is on your side in a perceived war. You are just expressing your adoration for the people who tell you what to think, no real discussion needed!
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.