Parkcobound,
I applaud your earnestness in wanting truth, justice and (may I add, "the American way of life"). Unfortunately the earth is populated with humans that have different desires and as such they strive for different goals that you.
To be brief, I am intrigued that you suggested the return to the paper ballot. Can I infer from that proffer that you would be in favor of proof of citizenship in order to vote?
I am. And anyone who thinks that is an infringement on their rights isn't as interested in things being correct as they should be. That being said, I think the reality of voter fraud is not quite what some make it out to be...at least not yet. However, I could make a quasi argument for legitimate immigrants having the right to vote, providing they are law abiding citizens contributing to the U.S. economy and pursuing petmenant citizenship. I think anything of that sort would need to be ONLY those in process to he permanent. I'd also prefer they spend their money here not send it home, but we do not live in a police state nor do u want to...which means we would have no way to verify. That being said, I think there may need to be some sort if universal identification system. If I have to go to the safety deposit box to get my birth certificate every time I vote....that would be a pain. And these days with identity theft issues carrying too much personal information around could be dangerous. One thought...I do not fly, but my husband does frequently and the airlines have some sort of special card you can get to get through TSA quicker...possibly something similar to that could be implemented for those who do not want to have to bring extra I D with them? Not sure That's a great idea, just throwing it out there....trying to be solution oriented.
Parkcobound,
We are in agreement, in order to vote, an individual must be a citizen and show proof of identification when voting. The machinations that are done to increase the number of votes, legal or otherwise are legion, for example, motor-voter registration, same day registration, mail in ballots.
Perhaps you meant to say that law abiding legal immigrants that are in the process to obtain citizenship be allowed to vote. Your post states legitimate immigrants ...providing the are law abiding citizens... Citizenship is one of the foundations of the right to vote and if one has it, he/she can vote; there is a minority of citizens that are felons are have lost their voting right in some states.
Yes, I did mean legal immigrants, persons following the legal process to become us citizens. And yes different states do seem to have varying processes to register to vote, and many seem far too simple, however, i suspect a person living in a very large city, lets say new York city for instance, were people (many) do not own cars, could have difficulty getting registered to vote. That being said the digital world did not really begin until the 80s and we have been voting for..well you get my point. Obviously I use and enjoy the internet, but it seems to me that has opened us up to many negatives, including possible voter fraud. Certainly I am more concerned with someone in another country potentially altering our votes, or voting or in some way effecting the outcome of an election than I am about someone (an actual us citizen) voting when they are prohibited from doing so for one reason or another. Certainly that would be breaking the law, however my main concern is really that the people voting in our elections have a legitimate vested interest in this country if that makes sense.
Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, received a secret payment of at least $400,000 (£300,000) to fix talks between the Ukrainian president and President Trump, according to sources in Kiev close to those involved.
The payment was arranged by intermediaries acting for Ukraine's leader, Petro Poroshenko, the sources said, though Mr Cohen was not registered as a representative of Ukraine as required by US law.
Mr Cohen was brought in, he said, because Ukraine's registered lobbyists and embassy in Washington DC could get Mr Poroshenko little more than a brief photo-op with Mr Trump. Mr Poroshenko needed something that could be portrayed as "talks".
This senior official's account is as follows - Mr Poroshenko decided to establish a back channel to Mr Trump. The task was given to a former aide, who asked a loyal Ukrainian MP for help.
There is no suggestion that Mr Trump knew about the payment.
A week after Mr Poroshenko returned home to Kiev, Ukraine's National Anti Corruption Bureau announced that it was no longer investigating Mr Manafort.
Renato Mariotti Verified account @renato_mariotti 21 hours ago
8/ It would be difficult to prove that there was a corrupt exchange in a court of law unless the deal was explicit or heavily implied. Here it probably didn't have to be. I would be surprised if this resulted in charges, but it *should* outrage the public.
Thread:
Mr. Cohen seems to like making illegal deals, Mr. Trump really doesn't seem to hire the best people now does he?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Whoa SC,
Proroshenko, the President of Ukraine, is a sworn, lifelong enemy of Russia. I thought the Trump administration was colluding with the Russians?
ramage wrote: Whoa SC,
Proroshenko, the President of Ukraine, is a sworn, lifelong enemy of Russia. I thought the Trump administration was colluding with the Russians?
Whoa ramage! Ever heard of quid pro quo?
Why? To help ease/stop the investigations by Ukraine into manafort.
I won't be surprised to find I am a little older than some on here, but I am old enough to remember the Watergate hearings..and while I am not making a direct correlation between the two situations, I do recall thinking the same thing then as I am now, and that is: I sure hope the president is not involved, but I do hope that the truth of the whole matter is rooted out and anyone who has overstepped or flat out broken the law is found out, and justice restored. Having said that, I will admit I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing. Is any politician truly honest?
ramage wrote: Whoa SC,
Proroshenko, the President of Ukraine, is a sworn, lifelong enemy of Russia. I thought the Trump administration was colluding with the Russians?
Whoa ramage! Ever heard of quid pro quo?
Why? To help ease/stop the investigations by Ukraine into manafort.
