Poll for the Chat Dems

[halfchubb1294]

Alright. I am genuinely curious for the chat Libs AND "never Trumpers", this post is for you. @willdup @jlstone412
Is it more of a "I hate Trump" or you align more with Kamala's/Dem America?

 

[shonuff253]

I would still vote for Harris but this question would be better directed toward Chat never Trumpers and not Dems. If Harris wins it's because a significant number of Republicans either crossed over to Harris or not voting for Trump.

 

[halfchubb1294]

I would still vote for Harris but this question would be better directed toward Chat never Trumpers and not Dems. If Harris wins it's because a significant number of Republicans either crossed over to Harris or not voting for Trump

I agree it should be more directed to never Trumpers as well. This poll also goes out to the never Trumpers as wel. @shonuff253

 

[Don Ellis]

I’d vote for Harris for 1 reason and 1 reason only.

Joe Biden walked on stage and admitted he was the Big Guy and he and his family got rich from selling his out his influence to foreign countries while he was VP.

That would be awesome and would get my vote

 

[NotSilverBritches]

I’m an independent, and I don’t know if I’d vote for Haley or not, but I’d feel a hell of a lot better about the Republican option. Like I did Romney.

And McCain.

And W.

And Dole.

And Bush 41.

 

[Athens62]

Why not JD Vance vs Kamala? Makes more sense as they were VP picks prior to The Big Guy falling down the steps & knocking his head.

Not a fan of Haley or Kamala - think they both rep Big GVT.

 

[Cayle16]

Why not JD Vance vs Kamala? Makes more sense as they were VP picks prior to The Big Guy falling down the steps & knocking his head.

Not a fan of Haley or Kamala - think they both rep Big GVT.

I just really don’t see how people can vote for someone as stupid as Kamala.

Seriously question though…….Can anyone in here justify why it’s “racist” to have to require IDs to vote? I mean if people can not provide an ID to vote, how do they expect to be taken seriously on things like buying houses and getting jobs? But somehow people do not have a problem producing IDs then -only when it’s convenient for their agenda.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

I just really don’t see how people can vote for someone as stupid as Kamala.

Seriously question though…….Can anyone in here justify why it’s “racist” to have to require IDs to vote? I mean if people can not provide an ID to vote, how do they expect to be taken seriously on things like buying houses and getting jobs? But somehow people do not have a problem producing IDs then -only when it’s convenient for their agenda.

Because Trump isn’t exactly a member of MENSA either?

I don’t get real worked up about the voter ID thing, but a quick story:

A buddy of mine (big time GOPer) went to Little Caesar’s and had to show his ID to get his pizza, so he said we should have to show ID to vote.

I said to him, “Your argument would be better if the right to buy shitty pizza was enumerated in the Constitution.”

Why is it so important to regulate this, but not other things like guns? Why do Republicans want to roll back regulations on everything EXCEPT this?

This isn’t necessarily my personal view, I’m just arguing the other side.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

Because Trump isn’t exactly a member of MENSA either?

I don’t get real worked up about the voter ID thing, but a quick story:

A buddy of mine (big time GOPer) went to Little Caesar’s and had to show his ID to get his pizza, so he said we should have to show ID to vote.

I said to him, “Your argument would be better if the right to buy shitty pizza was enumerated in the Constitution.”

Why is it so important to regulate this, but not other things like guns? Why do Republicans want to roll back regulations on everything EXCEPT this?

This isn’t necessarily my personal view, I’m just arguing the other side.

What do you mean "but not other things like guns"?

Are you telling us that legal guns sales don't require ID?

 

[NotSilverBritches]

What do you mean "but not other things like guns"?

Are you telling us that legal guns sales don't require ID?

Don’t equate the ID issue for guns vs ID for voting. I’m talking about regulation in general.

And like I said, I’m just trying to argue the other side. I didn’t say it was compelling.

Alabama of all places is actually out in front of this and doing really well with it. The Alabama Sec. of State is on TV every day reminding everyone you have to have a picture ID to vote. If you don’t have one, go to this website for your FREE photo ID for voting purposes only.

That is how you take a position and then present solutions to problems your position may create. Really well done.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

Don’t equate the ID issue for guns vs ID for voting. I’m talking about regulation in general.

And like I said, I’m just trying to argue the other side. I didn’t say it was compelling.

Alabama of all places is actually out in front of this and doing really well with it. The Alabama Sec. of State is on TV every day reminding everyone you have to have a picture ID to vote. If you don’t have one, go to this website for your FREE photo ID for voting purposes only.

That is how you take a position and then present solutions to problems your position may create. Really well done.

What do you mean don't equate it? You're the one who brought it up.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

What do you mean don't equate it? You're the one who brought it up.

Look my guy, read what I’m saying. I didn’t say it was a great argument, I was just trying to give the OP the argument he was asking for. I have now said THREE DAMN TIMES that this isn’t my personal view.

But while we’re on the subject, you know Republicans would probably get rid of ID requirements to buy guns if they could get away with it, hollering “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” the whole way.

 

[zingerdawg]

Look my guy, read what I’m saying. I didn’t say it was a great argument, I was just trying to give the OP the argument he was asking for. I have now said THREE DAMN TIMES that this isn’t my personal view.

But while we’re on the subject, you know Republicans would probably get rid of ID requirements to buy guns if they could get away with it, hollering “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” the whole way.

You are bringing up a scenario that you have no idea is true. And I would bet a lot of money most republicans would still be on board to show an id to purchase a gun. I know some of the most ardent gun advocates in the world who would still want an id required. It is like saying all democrats are ok with illegals being able to vote in elections.

I get what you are trying to say here. Pubs are for less government. I think elections are different. Most people even democrats believe elections should be by citizens and secure. Why would you ever want a non citizen voting for something that affects your taxes or rights? So you can believe in the system. The real question you should ask is why would anyone want to make elections less secure. There is only one reason. Using anything else is just an excuse.

 

[stray]

Because Trump isn’t exactly a member of MENSA either?

I don’t get real worked up about the voter ID thing, but a quick story:

A buddy of mine (big time GOPer) went to Little Caesar’s and had to show his ID to get his pizza, so he said we should have to show ID to vote.

I said to him, “Your argument would be better if the right to buy shitty pizza was enumerated in the Constitution.”

Why is it so important to regulate this, but not other things like guns? Why do Republicans want to roll back regulations on everything EXCEPT this?

This isn’t necessarily my personal view, I’m just arguing the other side.

Ironically, your argument would be better if there was actually a right to vote enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Cayle16]

Because Trump isn’t exactly a member of MENSA either?

I don’t get real worked up about the voter ID thing, but a quick story:

A buddy of mine (big time GOPer) went to Little Caesar’s and had to show his ID to get his pizza, so he said we should have to show ID to vote.

I said to him, “Your argument would be better if the right to buy shitty pizza was enumerated in the Constitution.”

Why is it so important to regulate this, but not other things like guns? Why do Republicans want to roll back regulations on everything EXCEPT this?

This isn’t necessarily my personal view, I’m just arguing the other side.

Yeah let’s just not even have ids anymore. Let anyone vote for President 3, 4, 5 times. Let anyone pick your kids up from school, buy guns, alcohol. Makes sense, right?

 

[NotSilverBritches]

Ironically, your argument would be better if there was actually a right to vote enumerated in the Constitution.

You mean besides the 15th, 17th, and 19th Amendments?

 

[NotSilverBritches]

You are bringing up a scenario that you have no idea is true. And I would bet a lot of money most republicans would still be on board to show an id to purchase a gun. I know some of the most ardent gun advocates in the world who would still want an id required. It is like saying all democrats are ok with illegals being able to vote in elections.

I get what you are trying to say here. Pubs are for less government. I think elections are different. Most people even democrats believe elections should be by citizens and secure. Why would you ever want a non citizen voting for something that affects your taxes or rights? So you can believe in the system. The real question you should ask is why would anyone want to make elections less secure. There is only one reason. Using anything else is just an excuse.

Hey, apparently it doesn’t matter if something is true or not, as long as it gets people talking. Learned that from JD Vance.

 

[stray]

You mean besides the 15th, 17th, and 19th Amendments?

No, I mean it's not enumerated AT ALL. Those amendments only prevent restrictions being put on certain people.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

No, I mean it's not enumerated AT ALL. Those amendments only prevent restrictions being put on certain people.

You are absolutely incorrect here.

I bet you only believe in the right to bear arms if you are part of a well-regulated militia. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in there either, but the Establishment Clause is.

 

[stray]

You are absolutely incorrect here.

I bet you only believe in the right to bear arms if you are part of a well-regulated militia. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in there either, but the Establishment Clause is.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/voting-rights-constitution.html

Today, the country remains engaged in a long-running debate about what counts as voter suppression versus what are legitimate limits or regulations on voting – like requiring voters to provide identification, barring felons from voting or removing infrequent voters from the rolls.

These disputes often invoke an incorrect assumption – that voting is a constitutional right protected from the nation’s birth. The national debate over representation and rights is the product of a long-run movement toward mass voting paired with the longstanding fear of its results.

The nation has evolved from being led by an elitist set of beliefs toward a much more universal and inclusive set of assumptions. But the founders’ fears are still coming true: Levels of support for the rights of opposing parties or people of other religions are strikingly weak in the U.S. as well as around the world. Many Americans support their own rights to free speech but want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. Americans may have come to believe in a universal vote, but that value does not come from the Constitution, which saw a different path to the protection of rights.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

https://www.nytimes.com/article/voting-rights-constitution.html

Today, the country remains engaged in a long-running debate about what counts as voter suppression versus what are legitimate limits or regulations on voting – like requiring voters to provide identification, barring felons from voting or removing infrequent voters from the rolls.

These disputes often invoke an incorrect assumption – that voting is a constitutional right protected from the nation’s birth. The national debate over representation and rights is the product of a long-run movement toward mass voting paired with the longstanding fear of its results.

The nation has evolved from being led by an elitist set of beliefs toward a much more universal and inclusive set of assumptions. But the founders’ fears are still coming true: Levels of support for the rights of opposing parties or people of other religions are strikingly weak in the U.S. as well as around the world. Many Americans support their own rights to free speech but want to suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree. Americans may have come to believe in a universal vote, but that value does not come from the Constitution, which saw a different path to the protection of rights.

Now go read the actual Constitution.

Of course it’s not a universal right. But like other Constitutional rights, it can be abridged, denied, or revoked after due process of law.

I know you’re frantically googling to win the argument, but you’re sort of in my wheelhouse here, buddy. If you’re hanging on the distinction between enumerated and implied, I’ll spot you that and still be right. You’ll still be wrong.

 

[zingerdawg]

Hey, apparently it doesn’t matter if something is true or not, as long as it gets people talking. Learned that from JD Vance.

Or any Democrat attack ad running today. Or do we think trump is actually going to stop and monitor women’s pregnancies. Or institute a national ban on abortion. I appreciate the non response. Or subject change. You were making a pretty weak argument there. Best to move on. 😂

 

[NotSilverBritches]

Or any Democrat attack ad running today. Or do we think trump is actually going to stop and monitor women’s pregnancies. Or institute a national ban on abortion.

No, he’s not going to implement a national ban on abortion.

And Harris is not going to subsidize gender changing surgeries at recess, either.

 

[zingerdawg]

No, he’s not going to implement a national ban on abortion.

And Harris is not going to subsidize gender changing surgeries at recess, either.

Only if they are in jail. Free sex changes for those in juvenile detention under her watch.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

Look my guy, read what I’m saying. I didn’t say it was a great argument, I was just trying to give the OP the argument he was asking for. I have now said THREE DAMN TIMES that this isn’t my personal view.

But while we’re on the subject, you know Republicans would probably get rid of ID requirements to buy guns if they could get away with it, hollering “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” the whole way.

Dude, I responded to what you posted asking for clarity. Flying off the handle isn't productive. Not sure why you posted anything if you can't handle a conversation.

 

[willdup]

Alright. I am genuinely curious for the chat Libs AND "never Trumpers", this post is for you. @willdup @jlstone412
Is it more of a "I hate Trump" or you align more with Kamala's/Dem America?

Not a Dem, though I realize I play one on the Chat. I’ll just say again I’ve voted for more GOP presidential candidates than Dem candidates, although another few elections cycles similar to this one and that will change.

Haley would warrant consideration, but I’d likely still vote Harris.

Haley would be a fine POTUS, although the degree to which she took a principled stand against Trump and then completely folded when the rubber met the road is beyond disappointing. I moved to SC a few years ago and she isn’t as popular here as you would think exactly because many don’t trust that she has any principles beyond political expediency.

But to be clear, I would have no problem sleeping after a Harris victory. That will not be the case if Trump wins.

 

[NotSilverBritches]

Dude, I responded to what you posted asking for clarity. Flying off the handle isn't productive. Not sure why you posted anything if you can't handle a conversation.

That's flying off the handle? Have you read some of the tinfoil hat shit on this board?

 

[LRA Dawg]

I voted Libertarian for President strictly out of protest for the two lousy choices. I would have easily voted Republican for just about anyone else who ran against Trump in the primary.

The rest of my ballot was straight R. There are a lot of baseless claims thrown out about Trump, but when critics say he cares more about himself than the Constitution or election results, they are correct.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

That's flying off the handle? Have you read some of the tinfoil hat shit on this board?

I'm addressing you as your intent appears to be gaslighting.

When you post something on a message board and someone replies asking for clarity causing you to go off on a tangent instead of continuing the actual conversation about a comment you made complete with hostilities, yeah, you're flying off the handle.
I mean you did tell me to not consider a point that you brought up and now you're deflecting asking about the board's behavioral history.

It appears you tried to make a political point while hiding behind your acquaintance's opinion which means it's likely your opinion too but you're afraid to own it. Why else would you stress that it's not even your opinion? No one forced you to post it.

Anyway, getting late in the day for this nonsense so have at it as long as you wish.

 

[shonuff253]

For Trump voters, if he losses will it be because of women or Dem "cheating"?

 

[NotSilverBritches]

I'm addressing you as your intent appears to be gaslighting.

When you post something on a message board and someone replies asking for clarity causing you to go off on a tangent instead of continuing the actual conversation about a comment you made complete with hostilities, yeah, you're flying off the handle.
I mean you did tell me to not consider a point that you brought up and now you're deflecting asking about the board's behavioral history.

It appears you tried to make a political point while hiding behind your acquaintance's opinion which means it's likely your opinion too but you're afraid to own it. Why else would you stress that it's not even your opinion? No one forced you to post it.

Anyway, getting late in the day for this nonsense so have at it as long as you wish.

Accusing me of gaslighting after saying I flew off the handle is certainly one way to go. Sounds like gaslighting inception.

You arguing with an admitted devil's advocate that said three times he was playing devil's advocate is not exactly the intellectual kung fu you think it is. Asking for clarification from a devil's advocate that admits he doesn't have a compelling argument isn't either.

If you were right, and that really was how I felt, I'm not sure I would repeatedly say the argument set out is weak.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

For Trump voters, if he losses will it be because of women or Dem "cheating"?

View embedded media

Trump losing will be the result of four decades of replacing the native populace and a propaganda machine that Soviet Russia would envy.

 

[shonuff253]

Trump losing will be the result of four decades of replacing the native populace

Trumps going to lose because of Native American population? Well that just doesn't make any sense at all. 🤔😏

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

Accusing me of gaslighting after saying I flew off the handle is certainly one way to go. Sounds like gaslighting inception.

You arguing with an admitted devil's advocate that said three times he was playing devil's advocate is not exactly the intellectual kung fu you think it is. Asking for clarification from a devil's advocate that admits he doesn't have a compelling argument isn't either.

If you were right, and that really was how I felt, I'm not sure I would repeatedly say the argument set out is weak.

Shallow advocacy.

 

[stray]

For Trump voters, if he losses will it be because of women or Dem "cheating"?

View embedded media

Is it OK if we call her a Nazi or would that be remarkably offensive? Asking for a friend.

 

[halfchubb1294]

Not a Dem, though I realize I play one on the Chat. I’ll just say again I’ve voted for more GOP presidential candidates than Dem candidates, although another few elections cycles similar to this one and that will change.

Haley would warrant consideration, but I’d likely still vote Harris.

Haley would be a fine POTUS, although the degree to which she took a principled stand against Trump and then completely folded when the rubber met the road is beyond disappointing. I moved to SC a few years ago and she isn’t as popular here as you would think exactly because many don’t trust that she has any principles beyond political expediency.

But to be clear, I would have no problem sleeping after a Harris victory. That will not be the case if Trump wins.

What exactly won't let you sleep at night if Trump wins? Genuinely curious. Can't be border secutiry or geopolitical issues because we all know he kept things quiet and peaceful over seas.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

What exactly won't let you sleep at night if Trump wins? Genuinely curious. Can't be border secutiry or geopolitical issues because we all know he kept things quiet and peaceful over seas.

He didn't sleep for 4 years. Would you want to stay awake that long?

 

[MartinVanDawgin]

Don’t equate the ID issue for guns vs ID for voting. I’m talking about regulation in general.

And like I said, I’m just trying to argue the other side. I didn’t say it was compelling.

Alabama of all places is actually out in front of this and doing really well with it. The Alabama Sec. of State is on TV every day reminding everyone you have to have a picture ID to vote. If you don’t have one, go to this website for your FREE photo ID for voting purposes only.

That is how you take a position and then present solutions to problems your position may create. Really well done.

NO ONE has ever produced a cogent, well-intentioned argument for not requiring an ID to vote. The only reason you don't want to make people produce proof that they are a citizen and eligible to vote is that you want to cheat. The "it disproportionately disenfranches poor and minority voters" is absurd. If that's the case, driver's licenses and passports are racist too.