TakeYouToTasker

For current enlistees, I'd say give them honorable discharges with full pensions when those pensions would have naturally matured through service time, and all other benefits associated.

Correct. is your Buddy Guy.

That's certainly a major part of it as well, though I was more focused on situations where other soldiers lives were dependent on the mental health of other soldier in their squad or unit during combat operations.

The transgender military service issue isn't a social issue, it's mental health issue. You can't have individuals afflicted with a condition leading to a suicide rate of almost 40% in high stress combat situations.

Because the feeder pools will dry up. The NFL and the NCAA have deep pockets, and may be able to absorb the costs of lawsuits into their business model. That won't be the case with high school or youth football. Once the law suit comes and bankrupts a school district, the school districts will stop offering the sport.

Jefferson agreed with your idea, and thought the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.

Well, yes. Unless you'd like to make the case that congress should pass unnecessary laws? The proper argument to make is that we absolutely should have laws in place to protect the integrity of the franchise. With that in mind we should conduct a thorough and comprehensive study of the issue, with the findings used to put laws in place.

What is the purpose of a nation state? Where did I lend my support to any particular law or type of law? How are your first and second sentences anything other than non-sequitur? As to his contribution? He didn't do much of anything other than mischaracterize my statements, engaging in intellectual dishonesty. That fact you find that laudable says more about you than anything else you've posted. And finally, for someone trumpeting the importance of listening, you sure don't do a very good job of it yourself.

I'm not sure whom exactly you think you're impressing with your intellectual dishonesty. What I have pointed out is the following: 1. That political power is extremely valuable 2. That politicians and political parties are largely corrupt 3. That the franchise is vitally important to the fabric of the nation, and should be protected 4. That the citizens of the nation should be able to have confidence that non-citizens are unable to vote 5. That there has never been a truly thorough study done on voter fraud in the United States 6. That the group whose uncomprehensive studies have been presented are compromised by conflicts of interest, or are activist groups seeking a specific outcome. 7. That the findings of other studies with differing results are being dismissed out of hand My only ask has been that we undertake a thorough and comprehensive study of voter fraud in the United States, and that we then pass appropriate legislation to prevent voter fraud based on those findings. Your ask is that we not conduct the study, and that we continue to dismiss any evidence which cuts against your narrative. Wow indeed.

Which is well and good, but still has nothing to do with him releasing his tax returns. Releasing them has nothing to do with Mueller's investigation. That's just noise from dopes like PastaJoe.

No it doesn't. You don't disclose income from illegal activities on your freaking tax returns. How does that make any sense?

Given that I was talking about a 2014 audit, I'd say your contribution isn't relevant. The audit was conducted after a citizens group expressed concerns about 10,000 individuals who may have registered to vote illegally. The audit concluded that 14% of these individuals were likely non-citizens. None of this is in dispute. The first step is coming to a consensus that the franchise is important, and should be protected. The second is to admit that there have been no truly comprehensive studies done, and that the potential for abuse exists. The third is to actually agree to conduct thorough and comprehensive research in order to determine where and how voter fraud is most likely to be committed, and to then craft legislation addressing it. The talking past each other people are doing, the insisting that any reforms are racist, has to stop.

You provided a link to the Brenner Center for Justice which is an activist group seeking to expand the franchise. Given the nature of the group, and the assembly of those smaller studies (which I'll get to in a moment) for a purpose, with the assumption that the BCfJ has vetted those studies given their decision to utilize them, I chose to label the grouping as a single study. It was lazy language, not a lack of examination. It's important to note the mission of the BCfJ when looking at the data they've chosen to provide. They are agenda driven. You'll note that there's no mention of any research which runs against it's stated purpose. Where is the Harvard study? Where is the study from Old Dominion? Those omissions, and omissions of similar studies, are persuasive towards the argument that BCfJ isn't interested in the truth, but is rather preoccupied with it's "truth"; and this case is further buttressed by the fact that many of the studies cited don't speak to the voter fraud directly, but rather make assumptions about it based on prosecutions for voter fraud. You'll also note that no where have I claimed that the studies I have linked are comprehensive. They aren't. There haven't been any truly comprehensive studies on voter fraud done. And if we're being honest with each other, and we agree that the franchise, and our experiment with self-governance is important, we should also be able to agree that crafting laws which protect it are important.

You linked a single non-comprehensive study, and the notion that research showing the possibility of wide spread voter fraud should be dismissed because it hasn't led to prosecutions is absurd. Should we also dismiss studies linking smoking to cancer because the existence of the study didn't lead to the end of smoking?

In your opinion, would you say the judicial branch is infallible, and that judges never seek to legislate their own politics from the bench? And it would only seem like a solution seeking a problem to someone rejecting data that they don't want to admit exists.

I just linked you two of them, both of which set out with the intention of disproving the voter fraud narrative, along with noting a state audit. As to your assertions about North Carolina, this is nothing more than evidence that when race pimps want to find racism, they'll find it; and not because it actually exists, but because they need it to exist. Because those reforms impacted blacks more than other racial groups does not mean they were targeted, nor does the fact that race data was studied mean that it was studied with the intent of disenfranchising. It's far more likely that this data was sought out in order that the NC legislature could seek to minimize racial impacts if possible; but decided that the realities of disparate impact did not outweigh protecting the vote. The truth is that those behaviors the bill sought to target are clearly areas which lend themselves to voter fraud; and your position that it does long term intentional harm to blacks is really more of a testimony about your own view of blacks, whom you apparently feel aren't smart enough, resourceful enough, or engaged enough to vote in ways the law would permit. It must be absolutely exhausting walking through life with your world view, constantly looking behind fences and under rocks for racists who don't exist who are seeking to do harm on an institutional level.

Again: That's not a comprehensive study, and it doesn't explain away the results of research done by Harvard, Old Dominion, and an audit done by the State of North Carolina which found that 14% of the registered voter citizen cases they examined (a count of 10,000) were likely non-citizens. It's important to note that there studies aren't comprehensive either. They only examine one aspect of voter fraud.

You don't see any possible conflicts of interest there? No reason to call in to question the reliability of these groups? What are they basing their positions on?

Have your sarcasm meter checked.

No, voting is not a fundamental right. Voting is a privilege bestowed on certain classes of individuals, restricted from others, by societies organized democratically. The very nature of the vote is dependent itself on the prior existence of government; and as such cannot be a right. The sole purpose of a Nation State is for the protection of the property and culture of the people who form it; with this in mind, your view of voting is backwards. The Nation State, with this mission it has been entrusted with in mind, has the duty to restrict the franchise to those individuals with whom it's mission aligns, which at a minimum standard means restricting in to eligible citizens; and with that stated, there is no point to having a standard if it is not enforced.

How is he supposed to know? Didn't you read? The meeting was secret.

It's hardly a miniscule issue, regardless of President Trump's thin skin, or need to be popular. Source for me the comprehensive studies done on the issue saying that it's insignificant. The facts of the issue: that political power is valuable, and that politicians and political parties are internally self-serving and largely corrupt. There is reason to believe that individuals driven to consolidate power would seek to do so by any means that they can get away with. Why is that so difficult for you to believe?

Are you now claiming that there is no voter fraud?

The same thing everyone would: Fan it out with nine of it's brothers, fire them up, and use it to light my Cohibas.

Actually, you haven't backed anything you've said with primary sourced data. Repeat after me: "You can't feel your way through difficult problems." But then, you know that. You don't have an actual argument to make. To summarize: corruption is not the problem, exposing the corruption is the problem.