Trump campaign chief is registered to vote in Florida at unoccupied home

[MongGrel]

Like you do.

I am not a troll just because you don't agree with me. I voice my opinion and you don't like it. Suck it up.

I am not ranting at all.

Of course not, you were even just saying you didn't have enough information about an ice cube tray in home and garden a few minutes ago

Just to rant.

 

[Jhhnn]

You need some violin music in the background.

Those people? Screw those people! I got mine!

 

[pcgeek11]

Of course not, you were even just saying you didn't have enough information about an ice cube tray in home and garden a few minutes ago

Just to rant.

A little context would be nice... I was only informing the OP in that post you mentioned that he did not provide enough information for anyone to answer his question. Don't be a dumb@ss.
Still no ranting found.

 

[pcgeek11]

Bought an ice cube tray in very flexible material (synthetic rubber or silicone i think) in a decent store but not too much info on the package aside from "made in china" which is always something to be careful about. It doesn't mention if it is BPA free or not.

So now I was wondering if I use this to make ice cubes so fill with water, put in freezer, if this can release toxic substances like BPA if i put these cubes in my drinks and if the level could be high enough to be dangerous?

I will first put it in the dishwasher for hygiene so i hope the heat from that can't make it release toxins afterwards?

Thanks for all good feedback.

There is no way to know without information that you do not have....

If you really have doubts, don't use it.

Of course not, you were even just saying you didn't have enough information about an ice cube tray in home and garden a few minutes ago

Just to rant.

He thinks it May Be synthetic rubber or silicon, but doesn't know what it is made from.

This is the chain of post you are referencing.
Where did I rant.

 

[pcgeek11]

Those people? Screw those people! I got mine!

I never said that.

 

[MrPickins]

I never said that.

It was implied, though.

 

[Paratus]

I never said that.

Sure you did.

It was implied, though.

That's the way I read it too.

Or to paraphrase.

"Some of you may lose the ability to vote but that's a risk I'm willing to take"

 

[glenn1]

Sure you did.



That's the way I read it too.

Or to paraphrase.

"Some of you may lose the ability to vote but that's a risk I'm willing to take"

If you aren't supposed to vote or are posing as someone else then losing the ability to vote is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure you did.



That's the way I read it too.

Or to paraphrase.

"Some of you may lose the ability to vote but that's a risk I'm willing to take"

More important is the obvious truth, that Repub leaders intend disenfranchisement, exploit fear, pride & prejudice to gain public support for doing so. They hide the fact that it's deeply anti-democratic & Un-American. It disenfranchises not just blacks but low socio-economic ranking people of all races.

It's not just about race but about class, about trickledown economics actually being beatdown economics for working people everywhere. Make no mistake- that's what Repubs intend more of. The rest of their issues are just smokescreens for that.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you aren't supposed to vote or are posing as someone else then losing the ability to vote is a feature, not a bug.

Non-strict voter ID hasn't failed us in that regard. Quite the contrary. It resulted in 31 known cases of in person voter fraud out of approx 1B votes. It's hard to see how it can get much better than that or why anybody should be inconvenienced in the slightest to make it better.

Strict voter ID doesn't prevent fraud. It *is* fraud.

 

[glenn1]

Non-strict voter ID hasn't failed us in that regard. Quite the contrary. It resulted in 31 known cases of in person voter fraud out of approx 1B votes. It's hard to see how it can get much better than that or why anybody should be inconvenienced in the slightest to make it better.

Strict voter ID doesn't prevent fraud. It *is* fraud.

Most states don't perform even non-strict, that's my point. Please stop thinking wrongly that non-strict states even attempt to validate your identity, they don't because people like Fskimospy DO NOT WANT THEM TO DO SO. In California poll workers are expressly prohibited from performing identity verification on anyone but first time voters.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vot...o/poll-worker-training-standards/section-one/

Poll workers may only ask a voter to provide identification if the voter index explicitly states identification is required because the voter is a new voter who mailed in a voter registration form without identification. When asking for identification, the poll workers should know which forms of identification are acceptable and that a photo identification is not required, but is simply one of several acceptable forms of identification. Poll workers should also be instructed that a photo identification does not have to contain the voter's address or be issued by a government agency. Poll workers should be provided with a list of examples of acceptable forms of identification as listed in Section 20107 of the California Code of Regulations.

 

[Jhhnn]

Most states don't perform even non-strict, that's my point. Please stop thinking wrongly that non-strict states even attempt to validate your identity, they don't because people like Fskimospy DO NOT WANT THEM TO DO SO. In California poll workers are expressly prohibited from performing identity verification on anyone but first time voters.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vot...o/poll-worker-training-standards/section-one/

So they don't perform signature matching? Really?

The whole issue is a manifestation of right wing FUD, that we can't trust each other even a little bit, that our fellow Americans are unworthy of that. The contention is that Dems are more likely to engage in a non-existent activity than Repubs even though there's no evidence to support that. It's bullshit.

From a rational viewpoint, only partisan zealots would engage in such practice & Repubs seem to have an edge wrt partisan zealots. I'm more than willing to let the system as it is handle those problems because I don't think that such people exist in sufficient numbers to be significant. I trust the opposition at least that far & have the numbers to back that up.

Politicians who attempt to unreasonably restrict the electorate do not intend to accurately assess the will of the people but rather to win any way they can. They fear honest democracy.

You have to figure out if you're just as afraid of it as they are, or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Relevant article published by the Washington Post today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-persistent-problem/?utm_term=.f34995fc7765

A News21 analysis four years ago of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states found that while some fraud had occurred since 2000, the rate was infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span. The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.

That's right, in a 12 year span they found slightly less than one case per year of voter impersonation. As a comparison, approximately 150 people are killed each year by falling coconuts. Sounds like we might want to spend our money on anti-coconut webbing long before we even think about voter ID laws.

 

[agent00f]

Like you do.

I am not a troll just because you don't agree with me. I voice my opinion and you don't like it. Suck it up.

I am not ranting at all.

Various people have shown that your opinion is objectively wrong. It's abundantly clear that doesn't matter to your continued insistence on expressing it again now and in the future.