DOE launches investigation into Maines compliance with title IX

Silence Dogood said:
If you claim to be for women, then a grievance is a grievance, not hard to understand
Click to expand...
Only an absolute child would think this way. Pretty obviously not all "grievances" are created equally, either in their seriousness or their scope. And that's true whether you're thinking about it from a moral perspective or a legal one.

Are you by chance the sort of Catholic who thinks every act of sin is equally bad, as in murdering your wife is the same as stealing a pack of gum? That would explain a lot.
 
Silence Dogood said:
If you claim to be for women, then a grievance is a grievance, not hard to understand
Click to expand...
Not really. As you should have noticed, I don't take damned fools who don't know what they are talking about seriously.

I'm still convinced that , since men are 90% of the complaints, they are worried more about transgenders in their locker room. You know they are afraid one of them is going to say, "Honey, you know you can get that fixed".
 
rodoheel said:
Again you seem to not be grasping the concept here. it's not just about people who only applied for benefits or bank accounts 20+ years ago (though I'm sure those people exist). It's anyone who had a valid ID at any point, then stopped having one (because they had no need to renew a DL). Like this scenario:

--Person has valid drivers license in 2022; opens bank account, applies for Medicaid, whatever
--Person's driver's license expires in 2023; they do not drive and do not renew it
--Person now lacks valid photo ID needed to vote

if you are fine with giving everyone a free ID what is the point of this speculation and denigration of the people who don't already have a valid ID? Why call their mental competence or ability to vote into question? is it just being mean-spirited for the sake of it? You seem far more willing to assume and believe negative things about people whose lives you know nothing about than to assume and believe that they have a good reason for not having a driver's license or passport of bank account or whatever. Why is that?
Click to expand...
The mental capacity aspect was separate from the navigating life aspect, but I didn't consider the aspect of having an expired ID. So, an elderly person may have an ID today, because it's likely that they would have, particularly as we get further and further from 2001, had to have had one at some point in their lives. But, as they get older, they won't or can't get a new one.
 
Most trolls start a thread with some outrageous crap sure to get a rise outta folks, and then they leave the board and don't come back for a long time, if ever. They leave their shitty thread just hanging while others with some reasonableness wring their hands trying to make sense of or argue with the OP.

Other trolls don't start threads, they just shit on other threads - again with an outrageous comment in an attempt to re-rail the thread. They may or may not stick around for the fireworks and occasionally pop back up like a fucking whack-a-mole with another stupid comment. But mostly they just stay away after dropping their shit-bomb.

And then we have The Do-gooder who is not as silent as his handle would suggest. He's been trolling this entire time. It's high time to put this arseling on super ignore
 
superrific said:
A lot more than the issue of migrant or non-citizen voting, which isn't happening at all and will never happen.

Think about it this way: how much would someone have to pay you to illegally vote in an election for you to do it? You cast your vote in a precinct where you live. Then this person tells you to travel to a different precinct and vote there under a different name, all spelled out for you.

Would you do it for $10K? $100K? Let's say you're easily bought and it's $10K. Now, let's see how this works out for the payor. He's got $1M he wants to spend on influencing elections. With that $1M he can buy . . . 100 votes. In other words, not enough to sway any significant election in NC that I remember. Even the state supreme court cases are being decided by a few hundred.

Well, now the person commits $100M to the task. With that, he can buy 10K votes. All right, that's possibly enough to sway an election. But which election? The presidential race in NC? It *** could have been *** decided by less than 10K votes, but actually it wasn't nearly that close. That's $100M down the drain. A House race? Which one?

Oh, and there's a logistical problem. How do you hide this? Suddenly people all over the area are buying new cars or appliances or whatever. Maybe they just buy a round of drinks for everyone at a bar. In any event, are we going to assume that none of these 10K people are going to have loose lips. If word gets out, there will be an investigation. This payor would be facing a very lengthy prison sentence. Imagine going to prison for paying $100M out of your own pocket for a chance at maybe getting something you want (which is itself of limited benefit, since there are many legislators).

NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE. Which is why it doesn't happen. Nobody has an incentive to risk jail time to cast a vote that is 99.999% likely to be meaningless.
Click to expand...
I agree that the likelihood of voter fraud changing an election is slim. I would also argue that the stakes are high enough that preventative actions, like requiring an ID, are justifiable.

Duplicate voting and other voter fraud happen in small numbers for free.
 
lawtig02 said:
But why not? It’s way more secure than any of the other voter ID plans that have been tossed around.
Click to expand...
Bumping again. Really strange our loquacious friend Silence won’t explain his objection to a very reasonable compromise proposal that would make voter fraud even more difficult to pull off.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree that the likelihood of voter fraud changing an election is slim. I would also argue that the stakes are high enough that preventative actions, like requiring an ID, are justifiable.

Duplicate voting and other voter fraud happen in small numbers for free.
Click to expand...
How much do you know about cost-benefit analysis?

What you've written here reminds me of the Simpsons episode in which Homer learns you can sell grease for money, and proceeds to buy a bunch of bacon and feed it to the dog to get 50 cents worth of grease.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree that the likelihood of voter fraud changing an election is slim. I would also argue that the stakes are high enough that preventative actions, like requiring an ID, are justifiable.
Click to expand...
By your estimation, how many non-citizens attempting to vote do you reckon would be prevented from doing so with voter ID laws? And how many eligible citizens desiring to vote would be prevented from doing so with voter ID laws?
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
How much do you know about cost-benefit analysis?

What you've written here reminds me of the Simpsons episode in which Homer learns you can sell grease for money, and proceeds to buy a bunch of bacon and feed it to the dog to get 50 cents worth of grease.
Click to expand...
What, especially at this point, would be more costly than finding out that the wrong person has been president for 2,4, 8, 12, etc months?
 
ZenMode said:
What, especially at this point, would be more costly than finding out that the wrong person has been president for 2,4, 8, 12, etc months?
Click to expand...
We're finding out, aren't we?

Oh, you mean elected by fraud. Thought you agreed that wouldn't really happen. Seems like it especially wouldn't happen in a presidential election. Well, barring something like the bogus voter purge in Florida in 2000.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
I'll be my own moderator. I've glanced at his clown posts for two days now. I've found nothing worth more than a thumbs down or eye-roll. Life's too short and precious to spend any portion of it reading shitposts. Silence is silenced. I hope he enjoys his time in Super Ignore. Bah-Bye.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. We have tools in place to customize our experience and, while I do appreciate those features, they come with their own issues. As you most certainly know, Ignore only blocks posts from an ignored poster, not any quoted responses to their posts. And Super Ignore sometimes breaks threads. What we really need is moderator action. I'm not advocating for immediate bans but warnings and more direction for certain posters would be helpful. And if they prove incapable of following board rules then temp bans and ultimately permanent bans.

This thread played out exactly as expected. Shitposter starts thread in bad faith to troll the board. Smart, knowledgeable, well-meaning posters attempt to understand his position on the issue only to inevitably realize that shitposter is either incapable of or unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. This cycle happens again and again with this poster and a handful of others. The only development I didn't see coming was this thread moving from a discussion about one particular solution in search of a problem to a different solution in search of a problem.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
I hear ya. We have tools in place to customize our experience and, while I do appreciate those features, they come with their own issues. As you most certainly know, Ignore only blocks posts from an ignored poster, not any quoted responses to their posts. And Super Ignore sometimes breaks threads. What we really need is moderator action. I'm not advocating for immediate bans but warnings and more direction for certain posters would be helpful. And if they prove incapable of following board rules then temp bans and ultimately permanent bans.

This thread played out exactly as expected. Shitposter starts thread in bad faith to troll the board. Smart, knowledgeable, well-meaning posters attempt to understand his position on the issue only to inevitably realize that shitposter is either incapable of or unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. This cycle happens again and again with this poster and a handful of others. The only development I didn't see coming was this thread moving from a discussion about one particular solution in search of a problem to a different solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely. Ignore solves 95% of the problems. I don't want a moderator deciding what I can and can't read. if I don't want to read it, I ignore it. Problem solved. Reading posts from people complaining about an ignored poster is not a problem and I generally skip right over those posts anyway.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
I hear ya. We have tools in place to customize our experience and, while I do appreciate those features, they come with their own issues. As you most certainly know, Ignore only blocks posts from an ignored poster, not any quoted responses to their posts. And Super Ignore sometimes breaks threads. What we really need is moderator action. I'm not advocating for immediate bans but warnings and more direction for certain posters would be helpful. And if they prove incapable of following board rules then temp bans and ultimately permanent bans.

This thread played out exactly as expected. Shitposter starts thread in bad faith to troll the board. Smart, knowledgeable, well-meaning posters attempt to understand his position on the issue only to inevitably realize that shitposter is either incapable of or unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. This cycle happens again and again with this poster and a handful of others. The only development I didn't see coming was this thread moving from a discussion about one particular solution in search of a problem to a different solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...
My favorite is when people put said obvious troll on ignore they complain that it's just "proof" that liberals here don't want to engage in "honest debate" and dialogue and they're just retreating to their "echo chamber", when in truth they're being put on ignore because they refuse to engage in honest debate or to answer questions put to them or in many cases to even defend their positions in any serious or substantive way. They carefully pick and choose what posts to respond to without responding to any serious questions or rebuttals of whatever they're arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top