How many assassination attempts needed before Democrats stop fearmongering?

Before I continue with my reply:

I appreciate your own series of responses, @spidersneedlovetoo -- you could have just thrown down a disapproving emoji and remained silent, but you continued to discuss and to make your own views known. And I genuinely respect that. Thank you. That provides a helpful example, I believe.

But now, I will reply:

In #70, you seem to quarrel with my writing style and my "listening." You seem to imply that I have insufficient "compassion." And if you think I "imply" an answer with which you disagree, you have the opportunity, I believe, to offer some other answer in response, and then support it without reference to whatever flaws you may find in me.

I am not "bludgeoning" anyone merely by disagreeing with them carefully and at length, by stating clearly my reasons for doing so. I'm not attacking anybody personally and I'm trying to be polite. However, I'm not going to agree with something I don't agree with, merely to be nice and promote some sort of harmony.

In any event, the conversation now seems to be changing to personal complaints about me, instead of continuing to discuss, and possibly refute, the substance of what I am saying. This seems to be a rather common occurrence lately, when people confront arguments that they don't care for or agree with and so feel a resulting tension.

Yet, let me be clear (as another might say): I think that adults in communities that you call "marginalized" (whoever you think those might be) are ... adults.

I don't think we need to assume that adults find identifying themselves to be an insurmountable, unfair burden. I don't see how it's "sucking it up" for an ordinary adult of any sort to get, or arrange with the help of government or others to get (if they are, say, handicapped in some way), some dependable form of identification.

To the contrary, I think adults typically have to get and then use identification from time to time, in the sort of routine circumstances that I carefully noted in my prior post #65.

I respect, and I have had many friendships and pleasant working and social acquaintances with, other adults of all shapes, sizes, gender preferences, colors and (many) national origins.

Consequently, when dealing with others, I don't give a rat's fanny what "community" they are in. I give other adults the benefit of the doubt and assume they are both competent and decent unless and until they clearly (and usually more than once) demonstrate otherwise.

I don't dwell on superficial differences, and instead think about what most of us have in common: concern for our friends and family, a desire to live an interesting, meaningful life, a reasonable work ethic, and a basic kindness, honesty and decency -- as some studies have demonstrated in the past.

And I think that, ordinarily, American citizens who are adults CAN INDEED handle identifying themselves. Americans (both in the more limited national sense or in the much broader geographical sense) come in all shapes, sizes, gender preferences, colors and national origins ... and Americans of ALL of those varieties can be, and usually are, competent and likeable. Experience proves that, with time, to any who are open to experience.

I hope that's something we can all agree upon.

Although, and I must say it, I think football is better in certain parts of Britain. But that, of course, is merely my opinion, and not irrefutable.

I must agree with the sentiment that its fair to have a picture ID to vote.
I called for picture ID to vote for the last three elections well Mine was expired last election so I could not vote in the local election.
Who was discriminated against?
I am American by birth I have no accent and I'm a republican. Who broke Democrousy listen to lame duck biden, and running mate harris.
PS I did get it renewed

@Noflaps said in #71:

@justme23 said in #72:

What if we just reinvent the system and move every vote onto bitcoin and you need a national id to vote and we count the popular vote?

@spidersneedlovetoo said in #73:

What if we just reinvent the system and move every vote onto bitcoin and you need a national id to vote and we count the popular vote?

If you can't be with the one you love, love a spider. Before

Switching to "the popular vote" would be foolish and dangerous, since it would make it possible for one or two big states controlled by one party to "game the system."

Let's say -- in theory, as a "thought experiment" -- that one or two big states begin to utterly ignore whether or not someone is a citizen and do nothing effective -- beyond giving lip service, to friendly media, about their "good intentions" and "carefulness" -- to make sure that only citizens vote. That could throw off the popular vote by MILLIONS, and there are plenty of people smart enough to realize that. It could LOCK IN a false result for the entire nation if only the "popular vote" mattered.

THAT would be an ACTUAL "threat to (representative) democracy." It would not be just angry, media-driven baloney.

But with the electoral college, bad practice in only one or two cynical states would probably have no game-changing effect. Right now, no state can ever take an unfair influence over the others, even if rule-bending or rule-ignoring should happen to occur, so long as we maintain the same electoral college that the brilliant founding fathers put in place FOR A REASON.

The electoral college IS fair. Indeed it is crucial in a way most people DON'T REALIZE -- indeed have no clue about.

Furthermore, the system currently uses the census to properly align electoral numbers for each state periodically -- so it stays fair -- yet it makes cheating much harder overall.

Be careful of following people who constantly want to sell you "new ways of counting." The old ways work fine -- and help to preserve honesty and accuracy.

Don't fall for hoaxes, either. If anybody tries to smear a candidate using a line of argument that has already shown to be false, DON'T FALL FOR THAT. Look at ALL the words of a candidate -- look at their ACTUAL RECORD and REPEATED past statements, not just carefully selected sound bites or sudden, unexpected new positions.

Too many people get played while THINKING that they are on the side of the angels -- while THINKING that they are wise -- just because they agree with some celebrity or attractive news personality. Too often, a fashionable but mistaken position is sold like a bad used car, and may even be sold in good faith but based on incorrect or incomplete understanding.

If somebody can't truly discuss something, in their own words, at length and in detail -- in response to tough, unbiased questioning -- what makes anybody think that the person really understands and should be followed?

I wish nobody would eagerly jump on the hype train. But bumper stickers are popular for a reason. And cultivated fear and other emotions, and a desire to conform, too often overrule logic. History has demonstrated that repeatedly.

And sure, hype could come from either side. So we might wish to look carefully to see who is willing to face hard questions most dependably, and who is not. That could help us to decide who is depending LEAST on hype and empty but fashionable vibes.

@Noflaps said in #75:

Let's say -- in theory, as a "thought experiment" -- that one or two big states begin to utterly ignore whether or not someone is a citizen and do nothing effective -- beyond giving lip service, to friendly media, about their "good intentions" and "carefulness" -- to make sure that only citizens vote. That could throw off the popular vote by MILLIONS, and there are plenty of people smart enough to realize that. It could LOCK IN a false result for the entire nation if only the "popular vote" mattered.
That would require extreme amounts of corruption and this is all assuming that the state government can implement this plan without internal state opposition, exposure from media that reject the plan/investigative journalism, analysis by skeptical citizens, and partisan callouts. Furthermore, this is all assuming that the state has the money and coordination to somehow control every single source of information that a citizen receives, which is extremely difficult in the modern day and would draw outcry from media corporations and tech companies who want to preserve their brand.

This scenario is ridiculously unlikely to ever occur if popular vote is implemented.

The electoral college IS fair. Indeed it is crucial in a way most people DON'T REALIZE -- indeed have no clue about.
Furthermore, the system currently uses the census to properly align electoral numbers for each state periodically -- so it stays fair -- yet it makes cheating much harder overall.
You haven't said how the electoral college is fair at all. You just asserted that the electoral numbers and census are somehow fair and how popular vote isn't.
The electoral college is one of the reasons why this year's election is most likely hinging on only a fraction of the total US population in swing states, who do not represent the entire US.

Lol. I refuse to brush away intelligently established safeguards to gain nothing real in return.

Even if someone tells you that corruption is unlikely, why take the chance AT ALL? Because they think it will more likely produce a RESULT that they'd prefer (and so would somehow be "more fair")?

Too many want to brush aside the constitution because they think, somehow, that doing so would be better ... for THEM.

Too many are getting played without even realizing it.

Who do you think is or was TRULY wiser? The brilliant founding fathers that created the American Constitution that has by now been widely copied, and helped a nation to grow stronger and last for centuries? Causing others to want to POUR in, to gain the same freedoms and opportunities the constitution protects?

Or, instead, some random person whose idea of change seems a bit more likely to foster a RESULT that THEY might prefer?

Right now, the big states DO play a large part in the final result ALREADY. Things are "close" only BECAUSE those states DO count. Pretending that a close race somehow implies something needs to be fixed makes no real sense. I much prefer a close race that is NOT corruptly influenced to a landslide result that COULD be corruptly influenced.

I shouldn't be alone in that. I hope not too many people get played. But after seeing what nonsense some people will swallow and even applaud, I'm not growingly optimistic.

@Noflaps said in #77:

Very interesting and nicely written points; I extend my compliments along with a hopefully valid use of that semi-colon.

That said: I would encourage you to challenge your own bias because as wise as some people in America's history may be they were still working with a system designed for the time and designed within a framework of compromise between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists, for example.

You ask questions framed as being open minded but then contextualize them in a way so that for anyone to challenge them implies the founding fathers weren't "brillliant"? Or weren't operating from an position of self-interest?

We muust remember that they had just secured power in the war against the Kind of England and were working to ensure that they didn't lose it again by drafting a self-aggrandizing framework fr these guiding documents.

That doesn't mean that they weren't well intentioned, but it's important to remember that there are multiple aspects of the original documents drawn up that have since been changed (because they were literally racist and sexist....)

Since you've already dismissed legitimate concerns brought up in these conversations about election security being disrupted, now, in Georgia, I assume you either missed that aspect of this conversation or are unaware that politically appointed election officials are working to disrupt safe guards this year.

Of courses, I'm curious if it's equally possible that you don't mind if democracy fails a bit as long as your side wins?

Thank you for your polite tone, @spidersneedlovetoo , and for considering what I write carefully.

No, I'm not AT ALL in favor of any failure of (representative) democracy -- which is the form the American Constitution established and promotes -- merely to win.

Indeed, so long as corruption and "the end justifies the means" play NO part in a result, I am absolutely content to live with that result.

But I see too many people shout "threat to democracy" while falling for old hoaxes and ignoring the fact that one candidate who was ACTUALLY picked by a primary vote is convinced to step down at nearly the last minute, once polls began to look shaky, and instead be replaced by another candidate who WASN'T originally picked by a national primary vote.

That seems a bit too ironic, and seems to get brushed aside and ignored by too many who suddenly find fault with the existing Constitution.

Winning ISN'T everything. Indeed, that's my main point. The American system is a damned good one. It should be protected and preserved. Not explained away.

And by the way -- nice use of the semicolon! Sincerely. Two relatively related independent clauses joined by a semicolon makes my heart soar like a hawk. It shows the educational system is not failing utterly.

@Noflaps said in #77:

Even if someone tells you that corruption is unlikely, why take the chance AT ALL? Because they think it will more likely produce a RESULT that they'd prefer (and so claim would somehow be "more fair")?
Then you might as well do absolutely nothing and get nothing done for any policy action, because every action will always have the slightest sliver of probability for dire consequences.
Appeal to probability fallacy.

Who do you think is or was TRULY wiser? The brilliant founding fathers that created the American Constitution that has by now been widely copied? Or some random person whose idea of change seems even a little more likely to foster a result they'd prefer?
The brilliant founding fathers could not predict how the nation would evolve, and that is why Article V exists. The Constitution is not an absolute, unchanging document.
The Electoral College has not been challenged just by "random" people. Challenges have been issued, such as the Bayh–Celler amendment in 1969, which was almost signed into law.
The large majority of people believe that moving away from the Electoral College is better for electoral fairness, which somewhat breaks party lines.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/

Too many are getting played without even realizing it.
And you somehow aren't?