Jump to content

Thomas J

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,379 Excellent

About Thomas J

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can show you the bill of rights. Voting is not in them. However the right to bear arms is number 2 and yet there is no objection to requiring people be a minimum age, not be a criminal, show id upon purchase, for some purchases requiring a waiting period. None of those requirements are in the second amendment, but they are all considered "reasonable". What is the objection to the "reasonable" showing of identification. The only reason for a person to object is if they are attempting to fraudulently vote. And just like the ID to purchase the gun, that is an action to prevent a gun from
  2. So why the objection to showing id? Banks set up cameras to prevent robberies, airlines screen baggage to prevent unauthorized objects from entering the plane, brokerage firms require ID to prove identity of those opening accounts. So what is your specific objection to having to show id. Whether there is fraud or not, is not the issue. Why protest so vehemently if there is nothing to hide.
  3. Again lets assume you are correct? What is the objection to having and showing ID which is reasonably expected for unlimited number of less critical things.
  4. Hand recounts count the votes, it does not determine if 1. the voter actually received the ballot 2. The voter actually was the person who turned in the ballot, 3. The ballot was not altered.
  5. It can't be done because there is no way of ascertaining if the person who turned in the ballot is "REALLY 'the person who is the registered voter. So by default voter fraud can't be proved because the system as it currently stands does not guarantee the voter on the front end, and since the actual vote is anonymous, no way of determining if it had been altered. Consider, the following countries have "biometric" to their voting systems. What is wrong with a system that guarantees voter integrity. Fraud or No Fraud. Just like airport security. You don't do it because there is a proble
  6. Those fraud lawsuits dismissed by the judges were due to lack of evidence to back up their assertions - purely speculation, rumors or hearsay. Sorry but what you presented falls in those categories. Two points. First what is the objection to showing ID.? Second, how exactly if you were in charge would you prove voter fraud? Ballots came in, were counted. How would you be able to 1. show the ballot went to the correct person 2. That the correct person actually filled out the ballot 3. That the ballot was not altered. If you can not do the latter, it is a system where though v
  7. Again, if you can't check there is no way of determining if it is true or not. If I filled out another persons ballot and submitted it, votes are anonymous. I can tell "if" someone voted but I can't verify if it was the actual person, or if the vote had been altered. Again, give me one good reason why it is "not reasonable" for a person to have to show evidence that they really are the person they are representing to be.
  8. Again, if there is no fraud, then why the push back on voter id to guarantee it. If a hotel room clerk asks you for your passport do you argue and say, well there have been no documented cases of people creating damage in your hotel. If the airline asks for your ID before boarding do you say, well there are no instances where your airline has ever had a hijacking or terrorist. The right to vote is just that a right. That deserves to be protected. Right now there is a rightr to purchases a firearm however it is considered "reasonable" that the person be a minimum age, show up in person, pr
  9. Even if that is true. Why the objection to the elimination of any fraud irrespective of party. Would you favor elimination of checking ID at airports since there have only been 5 instances of hijacking in the past twenty years. No. If the vote is honest, then there should be no objection to a "reasonable" procedure to ensure the vote is honest if for no other reason than to eradicate the notion that elections can be fixed.
  10. I guess using your logic, the bank should not put money in a vault, because it has not been robbed, locks should not be put on your doors since your home has not been broken into. A policeman should not carry a gun, because he/she has not been shot at. Fire stations and hydrants are not needed since this area has no history of fires. Right now, there is no way of ascertaining if fraud has or has not occurred.
  11. I know the refrain has been there is no election fraud. Honestly, I don't know how you in a mail in voting system you would ever know or without extensive follow up one on one audits that you could ever uncover it. Consider in the USA you register to vote. However you do not have to update your address if you move. I am still registered to vote in Michigan despite not having lived there since 2018. If a person resides in more than one state there is no process to cross check if the person who has a residence lets say in Florida and is registered to vote, also does not have an address i
  12. A person who actually makes sense and is not afraid to say it. Lets face it, ask yourself if you were a tourist and you had choices as to where to vacation, would you choose a destination that puts you into quarantine for 14 days or another. Also, if someone really is willing to sit in quarantine for 14 days to visit, they are really not a tourist. They are some form of long term resident.
  13. I suspect you are right. I don't know how the law office would handle the matter of distribution of assets upon sale of the property and dissolution of the company. I would guess relative to voting rights they could have different share classes and voting rights. Now beyond my pay grade in terms of how it could be structured so that the 49% owner receives 100% of the proceeds from the sale of the property if/when the property is ever sold again.
  14. Not sure about Schwab but I have a Chase bank account and had checks deposited without a problem. I even had some checks that were sent to my daughter in the USA. She took photo's and emailed them. I printed them off, signed them and scanned them into my bank account without a problem. If Schwab offers it, they must be using a USA bank. Schwab is a brokerage firm so it would need a bank. Schwab in Hong Kong uses Citibank so I suspect that the USA Schwab account is a citibank account and you scan it, deposit it, and they sort through that account to credit your check to your brokerage acc
  15. That is the best explanation I have heard. However here in my village there are about 30 homes and upwards of 10 of them are owned by "companies" The people who have the company are living in the homes and have for years. One man has two homes. He rents one out and lives in the other. The others strictly live in the home. One man has a Thai girlfriend so I suppose that could be the other shareholder" The other two, one is Lebanese and he has a Russian Wife. The other is a single man, who is is Moroccan but a French citizen. The latter two for sure don't sound like the description of c
  • Create New...