I’m fine with ballot boxes being watched, I’m not fine with the motivation and possible actions that might happen. Some of them are looking for trouble.
Pennsylvania sheriff deploys deputies to ballot drop boxes. Citizens questioned as the drop off their ballots.
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
I’m fine with ballot boxes being watched, I’m not fine with the motivation and possible actions that might happen. Some of them are looking for trouble.
I’ve always felt that conservatives, while championing “freedom,” are often very much drawn to totalitarianism and police states.
They’re there to make sure there are no problems. I don’t have an issue with them asking voters if those are their ballots as long as they are consistent in asking all voters the same question. You can make a valid argument that it’s not necessary, but it’s ridiculous to compare it to Nazi Germany or claim that people’s rights are being trampled.
Wake me up the first time blacks or Hispanics are singled out for additional questioning.
They’re not looking for trouble. They’re watching for people bringing in multiple ballots. If the same lady in the video who said they just asked her if those were their ballots came back again an hour later with more ballots, they probably would have some additional questions for her.
Jfc, I’m a patriotic American that cares about free elections and don’t care. I think it’s probably a good thing to have someone watching over ballot boxes.
I honestly don't even think it's a conservative thing, it's just a authoritarian thing. And that dumb sh!t doesn't give a f@ck about the left right political spectrum.
Na, majority are with me and the undesirables are about to lose most of their power.
Then have it done by election workers or freaking cameras.
Only authoritarian states have armed police hovering near ballot boxes.
Your side has won the majority in a national election one time since 1988. You are not in the majority.
I don’t have a side. And the stupid popular vote argument is getting old. I realize the logic is over your head- but if an election were decided based on the popular vote, turnout changes and results change. Dumb argument.
You're an intelligent enough poster, so I can't help but think that you're just trolling. If more people had stood up to their intimidation and anti-democratic tactics instead of giving them a pass because they were upset about inflation (sound familiar?), then the Nazis would have faded away as a footnote in history. It didn't quite turn out like that. There's a lot of anti-democratic rhetoric being peddled by a lot of candidates and office-holders on the right, and there are a lot of MAGAs lapping it up. And the vast majority of the GOP who are not actively spewing that rhetoric are content to say nothing, and ride that tiger so long as they find it beneficial to their chances of winning the next election.
I really doubt turnout changes. You have zero reason to claim the majority other than you own vanity and desire for power.
It's perfectly ok to hold views that are not in line with the majority. But there is no reason to believe you are in the majority.
Again, if you want to make the argument that it’s unnecessary to post a sheriff’s deputy next to the ballot box then that’s a perfectly valid opinion.
But to call it a totalitarian police state and compare it to Nazi Germany is indescribably stupid.
It would change dramatically. Conservatives in liberal states and Dems in conservative states would turn out in much higher numbers. Don’t be another hack- we have too many on this board already.
We don’t know. Point is you can’t fundamentally change the rules and expect the same behavior from people. Don’t be a hack- we have too many on the board already.
I wasn't aware there were goalposts. You argued that turnout would change and I agree. More people would feel they had a voice in selecting the President. I think that's a good thing.
Berks County...yep, checks out...
That's where Pennsyltucky starts/ends on the Eastern side of the Commonwealth...
That's where Pennsyltucky starts/ends on the Eastern side of the Commonwealth...
So you went from asserting you are in the majority to saying you don't know if you are in the majority.
He did that with his first reply to your popular vote argument. Dude is amazing.
This is totally unnecessary. All of us who are on the Soros payroll have already been trained that you’re supposed to call in a bank robbery across town before you dump your thousands of fraudulent ballots into the box. It’s like nobody remembers our training. Geez.
Law enforcement shouldn't be questioning people dropping off ballots unless they have some probable cause that a crime is being committed. That's a pretty simple concept.
And you and others are insisting that Democrats are the majority using flawed evidence.
It’s entirely possible that Democrats would still win the popular vote if the popular vote was the objective. There is no way for anyone to really know. What we do know is that the popular vote would be different if the popular vote was the objective. That’s not even open to debate.
The candidates would campaign differently. They would deploy time and money and resources differently. They would spend more time in California and New York and Illinois and Massachusetts instead of Ohio and North Carolina and Arizona and Georgia.
Republican voters on the west coast and the New England states would be more inclined to vote. Democratic voters in the deep south and the plains states would be more inclined to vote. There is simply no way to know how it would impact the final tally.
And yet every single day on HORT the Democrats repeatedly insist they are the majority and one of the most frequently cited pieces of evidence is that they have won 7 of the last 8 popular votes.
In 7 of the last 12 general elections, Republican candidates for the U.S. House collectively received more votes than the Democratic candidates collectively received. That tells me it’s a fairly even split between Republicans and Democrats in this country.
I would argue that you have the same issue. Most of our congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered so people might not want to vote because of that.
Also at issue is that half of those are mid-term elections where less people vote.
What, maybe they should be for armed insurrections? Maybe they should be pro-use of force to overturn an election?
Obviously you have something to hide.
I was told on this forum that's the only reason for people to want to exercise their 5th amendment rights.
Last edited:
Why do independents help to vote in Republicans after helping to vote them out??? It couldn’t be because of the crap policies the democrats run on? That was the point of my post
It sounds like what you’re saying is that, for a variety of reasons, election results are an imperfect metric for definitively deciding which party is the majority in this country.
And that’s my point.
Imperfect metric but likely the best we have.
Personally I wish we went with proportional representation. Then we would not only get a really good metric of where people stand but we would also get a government that reflects those stances.
I would also say we should elect our presidents via a popular vote ranked choice method. Either that or employ a prime minister or a chancellor which would the leader of the largest coalition.
Honestly I think maybe this would calm shit down as well. If we had half a dozen to a dozen parties in congress people would stop looking at everything as so binary.
Right! What does Cali know about cowboy hats!? You meant the west like Oklahoma!
Please explain how gerrymandering works in areas where there's a relatively high percentage of registered independents?
