If I ask a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist or Jew to give me an elevator speech on their religion they could. If I asked a priest or in an xor rabbi...id get a response about their faith. If I asked Moses, or Jesus, or Muhamed...they wouldn't say read my book. I am talking to the author and I cant get any ahaa quote?
Yes because in all your posts you couldn't answer one simple question if they want the election to be uncontended on validity then why not use a method agreed upon by the world as the most secure form of voting, in person with ID. You can't answer that question because answering that question would mean accepting that the Democrats aren't as upstanding and righteous as you belief them to be, seeing as that you repeatedly avoided answering any of my questions by providing anything other than a tit for tat or unsubstantiated it means you aren't willing to evaluate the situation subjectively, thus this discussion is pointless.
Ok. Thanks for the link. However she is not saying that Biden should not concede under any circumstances. That would be unconstitutional. She's saying that he should not immediately concede on election night before there is further investigation? And this has happened before? So there's a difference, imo? edited ...
To clarify. All the votes aren't expected to be counted on election night, so concession, on either side, should be postponed until almost all votes have been counted. This is, apparently, a bigger concern for the dem. as mail-in will take the longest to count and will initially be under represent.
I think voter fraud is a very important discussion since without trust in the system the system will collapse. But I haven't really seen a real discussion actually taking place, only two sides accusing each other of dishonesty. I'm uncertain as to how many US citizens have a clear understanding of the security checks to make a proper argument for their case. I'm certainly not informed, but then I don't need to be. Here's a link we can all decide for ourselves how reliable we think it is. The most important take-away for me is 'The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent.'. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
Like I said before if the mail in voting system has actual fraud or not, but as link posted proves you don't get arrested for no reason at all, and the people arresting a government official running for office, wouldn't happen if they didn't have prove, thus its up to the courts to decide his innocence not ours. But to get back to my point is that if a large number of the electorate belief that a voting system has a weakness in that it opens the door for fraud and corruption, then regardless if this is actually the case or not is not the issue, the issue is in having a system that is viewed by half of the population as fraudulent which will obviously skew any election results that might be had either way. The tried and tested system that most people the world over prefer as the most secure not perfect but most secure in person voting with ID, yields the fastest results and the most reliable results and in a contested election like this will most certainly be having doubt cast on your election process is something that can only further divide the already divided American public, thus pushing for mail in voting is not only irresponsible but also dubious as to why one would opt for a system that will yield results slowly even up to weeks after the votes has been cast, with high amount of fraud already suspected having a large delay in time will just add to the fraudulent speculation.
Adding to the problem is that half of the country doesn't trust the main stream media anymore, as they have shown blatantly over time that they are completely biased thus articles saying that the system is without fraud won't be trusted by anyone at all on the other side as they simply don't trust the main stream media anymore.
No one ever stops learning that's the point of life, and it remains to be seen as this election will be heavily contested with both sides mistrusting the other side, thus making it even worse by using contentious methods for voting helps no one.
The law is the law if you break the law you get the punished, making excuses for people breaking the law is nonsense, if it was Republican you would be jumping up and down now complaining about the evil law breakers - stop being a hypocrite. I am pretty sure that you won't get arrested if you just abide by the law, he was arrested so the court needs to decide if he is guilty or innocent your emotional defense to protect your party is completely irrelevant.
Germany never had nuclear weapons. Germany signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear research in Germany is done on peaceful use of nuclear energy. On the other hand, Germany is a NATO partner; some of the other NATO partners have nuclear weapons. So there is deterrence enough to satisfy even the conservative "falcons".
I agree with you, it just seems like Germany doesn't trust itself to use nuclear weapons safely, America even suggested Germany start getting nuclear weapons as to strengthen NATO's position against possible foreign enemies like communist China.
There is no "citizen ID Card" in the United States. A passport is valid proof of citizenship, but many US citizens don't have a passport, if they don't need to travel abroad. Drivers licenses are the next best thing to an "ID Card", and used in many cases where someone needs to identify themselves, but they are also issued to non-citizens, for obvious reasons. I'm out of this discussion. I joined here for interfaith discussion, not political science 101.
