|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 20 2015 02:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 01:48 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 00:31 always_winter wrote:On March 20 2015 00:12 Velr wrote:
Uhm... Isn't it unnessesary hard to vote in the US?
Why go for mandatory voting if you might as well first make it EASY and QUICK for people to vote...
Hint: If there are waiting times before your voting locals, your doing something wrong. Voting is incredibly quick and easy to do in the US. Applying for my voter ID entailed all of me driving three miles to my local civic center, submitting my driver's license and signing a form, and then receiving the ID card in the mail one week later. Voting entails me driving less than a mile to my local community center/church to wait in a line of about ten people, cast my vote and leave within the span of ten minutes. All of this is perfectly reasonable to me. Online voting opens the door to gross misrepresentation. I do think mandatory voting is an incredibly interesting topic of debate, and I was actually on my way to post the very same article. Certainly there are advantages, and particularly for the Dems, as a large portion of non-voters are minorities more closely aligned with liberal ideology. There are also inherent disadvantages, most notably unleashing a massive population of uneducated non-voters who would now be forced to inject their misguided views/opinions into a democracy that quite frankly does not value their opinion and has no need of it. There is a reason majority rules, as opposed to appeasing everyone, and that is because a lot of people, in every country, are idiots. Yeah. So... you have a driver's license and a car. Now imagine you are a poor latino and have to take the bus 10 miles instead of 3, and get told that your green card is not a legal ID documentation, and you need a legal state ID instead, which you can get at a different office, 10 miles in the other direction. People who do not have the wherewithal to get a driver's license or other form photo ID have such a hobbled capacity that they should not be voting anyway. did you read that from the constitution?
Touché.
|
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2015 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:05 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2015 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:01 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 01:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 00:49 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
So is there actually a consensus around here now that voter ID laws are, in fact, generally reasonable? the issue was never with voter id laws in general, but how they tend to be used in America, and why they were pushed by the republican party. A majority of the public wants them. The laws aren't always flawless, but that's something to be corrected, rather than bullshitted over. if you can fix all the flaws in them fine. but it's not bullshitting when the intent behind the laws actually proposed was nefarious. Also that the laws don't address an actual need. Statements from liars like yourself is what is nefarious. are you going to call a statement like "repulbicans pushing voter id law" nefarious lying? it's a pretty obvious fact. Don't reply to me if you aren't going to read my post. He claimed the intent was nefarious. Unless he can prove the intent, he is lying (again).
he could be advancing that as an argument, and advancing an argument short of absolute proof is not lying. intent can be supported from advantages gained by the short term enforcement of ID requirement. it can also be gathered from legislative priorities of republican state legislatures. e.g.
http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/
|
On March 20 2015 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:01 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 01:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 00:49 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
So is there actually a consensus around here now that voter ID laws are, in fact, generally reasonable? the issue was never with voter id laws in general, but how they tend to be used in America, and why they were pushed by the republican party. A majority of the public wants them. The laws aren't always flawless, but that's something to be corrected, rather than bullshitted over. if you can fix all the flaws in them fine. but it's not bullshitting when the intent behind the laws actually proposed was nefarious. Also that the laws don't address an actual need. Statements from liars like yourself is what is nefarious.
You're the one lying quite blatantly. It's well known and documented that the laws don't address any ACTUAL problem, and are done because they favor republicans; and that some of the voter id laws have been ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory.
|
On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush.
If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue.
|
On March 20 2015 01:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 01:48 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 00:31 always_winter wrote:On March 20 2015 00:12 Velr wrote:
Uhm... Isn't it unnessesary hard to vote in the US?
Why go for mandatory voting if you might as well first make it EASY and QUICK for people to vote...
Hint: If there are waiting times before your voting locals, your doing something wrong. Voting is incredibly quick and easy to do in the US. Applying for my voter ID entailed all of me driving three miles to my local civic center, submitting my driver's license and signing a form, and then receiving the ID card in the mail one week later. Voting entails me driving less than a mile to my local community center/church to wait in a line of about ten people, cast my vote and leave within the span of ten minutes. All of this is perfectly reasonable to me. Online voting opens the door to gross misrepresentation. I do think mandatory voting is an incredibly interesting topic of debate, and I was actually on my way to post the very same article. Certainly there are advantages, and particularly for the Dems, as a large portion of non-voters are minorities more closely aligned with liberal ideology. There are also inherent disadvantages, most notably unleashing a massive population of uneducated non-voters who would now be forced to inject their misguided views/opinions into a democracy that quite frankly does not value their opinion and has no need of it. There is a reason majority rules, as opposed to appeasing everyone, and that is because a lot of people, in every country, are idiots. Yeah. So... you have a driver's license and a car. Now imagine you are a poor latino and have to take the bus 10 miles instead of 3, and get told that your green card is not a legal ID documentation, and you need a legal state ID instead, which you can get at a different office, 10 miles in the other direction. People who do not have the wherewithal to get a driver's license or other form photo ID have such a hobbled capacity that they should not be voting anyway.
I'm sorry if your sarcasm is lost on me, but that's an absolutely stupid statement. I can be better educated on voting issues and not have a driver's license for a myriad of reasons (disability, no car and no reason to own one, my bloody freedom to decide whether or not I have one) that have absolutely nothing to do with my capacity to vote.
What an arbitrary, and frankly, stupid qualifier for whether or not i get to exercise my right to vote.
|
On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush.
^Yea that's accurate. Although it's really more of a testament to dichotomous political partisanship than anything else, of which the pursuit of self-interest is a natural byproduct.
|
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Thursday committing the federal government to cutting its own emissions 40 percent by 2025 and pledging to increase the amount of renewable energy used by federal agencies to 30 percent.
The executive order builds on a previous administration directive to cut emissions from federal agencies 28 percent by 2020, compared with 2008 levels. "We are well on our way to meet that goal," Brian Deese, senior adviser to the president, said in a call with reporters Thursday. "That's what's motivating us today to chart out a new and even more aggressive goal going forward."
The administration is also setting a goal of cutting the per-mile emissions from the agencies' vehicle fleet 30 percent, it said. It estimates the total commitment across the federal agencies will save taxpayers $18 billion -- funds that won't be spent on energy.
Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the Council on Environmental Quality, said that by the end of 2014, the federal government had cut emissions 17 percent since 2008, putting it well on the way to meeting Obama's earlier goal. Much of that has come through energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and with the installation of renewables.
As of the end of 2014, renewable energy accounted for 9 percent of the federal government's energy use, and Thursday's directive wants to increase that to 30 percent by 2025. The Department of Defense has set its own goal of deploying 3 gigawatts of solar energy on its installations around the world by 2025.
The federal government is the single largest energy user in the United States, Goldfuss said, with 360,000 buildings and 650,000 vehicles. "Not only is our footprint expansive, our impact is as well," she said.
The administration also argued that the push to reduce emissions in the federal government has effects across the private sector as well. To that end, the administration also released a scorecard to track emissions from major federal contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics, which the administration is also calling on to make reductions.
Source
|
On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue.
i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection.
|
On March 20 2015 02:19 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 01:48 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 00:31 always_winter wrote:On March 20 2015 00:12 Velr wrote:
Uhm... Isn't it unnessesary hard to vote in the US?
Why go for mandatory voting if you might as well first make it EASY and QUICK for people to vote...
Hint: If there are waiting times before your voting locals, your doing something wrong. Voting is incredibly quick and easy to do in the US. Applying for my voter ID entailed all of me driving three miles to my local civic center, submitting my driver's license and signing a form, and then receiving the ID card in the mail one week later. Voting entails me driving less than a mile to my local community center/church to wait in a line of about ten people, cast my vote and leave within the span of ten minutes. All of this is perfectly reasonable to me. Online voting opens the door to gross misrepresentation. I do think mandatory voting is an incredibly interesting topic of debate, and I was actually on my way to post the very same article. Certainly there are advantages, and particularly for the Dems, as a large portion of non-voters are minorities more closely aligned with liberal ideology. There are also inherent disadvantages, most notably unleashing a massive population of uneducated non-voters who would now be forced to inject their misguided views/opinions into a democracy that quite frankly does not value their opinion and has no need of it. There is a reason majority rules, as opposed to appeasing everyone, and that is because a lot of people, in every country, are idiots. Yeah. So... you have a driver's license and a car. Now imagine you are a poor latino and have to take the bus 10 miles instead of 3, and get told that your green card is not a legal ID documentation, and you need a legal state ID instead, which you can get at a different office, 10 miles in the other direction. People who do not have the wherewithal to get a driver's license or other form photo ID have such a hobbled capacity that they should not be voting anyway. I'm sorry if your sarcasm is lost on me, but that's an absolutely stupid statement. I can be better educated on voting issues and not have a driver's license for a myriad of reasons (disability, no car and no reason to own one, my bloody freedom to decide whether or not I have one) that have absolutely nothing to do with my capacity to vote. What an arbitrary, and frankly, stupid qualifier for whether or not i get to exercise my right to vote.
"or other form [of] photo id"
photo ids are pretty much a requirement in today's society. usually its a driver's license, but there are also many other government photo ids.
|
On March 20 2015 02:15 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:05 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2015 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:01 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 01:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 00:49 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
So is there actually a consensus around here now that voter ID laws are, in fact, generally reasonable? the issue was never with voter id laws in general, but how they tend to be used in America, and why they were pushed by the republican party. A majority of the public wants them. The laws aren't always flawless, but that's something to be corrected, rather than bullshitted over. if you can fix all the flaws in them fine. but it's not bullshitting when the intent behind the laws actually proposed was nefarious. Also that the laws don't address an actual need. Statements from liars like yourself is what is nefarious. are you going to call a statement like "repulbicans pushing voter id law" nefarious lying? it's a pretty obvious fact. Don't reply to me if you aren't going to read my post. He claimed the intent was nefarious. Unless he can prove the intent, he is lying (again). he could be advancing that as an argument, and advancing an argument short of absolute proof is not lying. intent can be supported from advantages gained by the short term enforcement of ID requirement. it can also be gathered from legislative priorities of republican state legislatures. e.g. http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/
No, he wrote it as a statement of fact. He is a confirmed, repeated liar.
|
On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection.
The long and short of what I was going to point out is that the Roberts Court likes to and the general trend in recent years is to point toward an emphasis on a party's ability to demonstrate an injury of enough granularity and specificity to warrant governmental action. This pertains not only to plaintiffs but also to Congress and the laws of the States; statutes that can be demonstrated to disparately affect suspect classifications of people, namely minorities, are going to have a heightened standard of scrutiny upon judicial review. In other words, the general trend of the current Supreme Court and the already established judicial policy of applying §5 of the 14th Amendment in negation of State law suggests that any sort of voter id law is going to have to come alongside a fair bit of structural improvement insofar as service availability and "ease of use" is concerned. That those who do not find it easy to get an id are of a particularly low stature otherwise just further reinforces the idea that states who want to basically take away these people's practical ability to vote ought to have a damn good reason why and how they are going to to justify it. In a historical sense, the Federal courts have not looked kindly on any sort of barrier to voting, and the plain-faced simplicity of the logic behind requiring voter ids will not overcome the actual effects of instituting the law.
|
Edit: question answered, nevermind.
|
On March 20 2015 02:19 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 01:48 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 00:31 always_winter wrote:On March 20 2015 00:12 Velr wrote:
Uhm... Isn't it unnessesary hard to vote in the US?
Why go for mandatory voting if you might as well first make it EASY and QUICK for people to vote...
Hint: If there are waiting times before your voting locals, your doing something wrong. Voting is incredibly quick and easy to do in the US. Applying for my voter ID entailed all of me driving three miles to my local civic center, submitting my driver's license and signing a form, and then receiving the ID card in the mail one week later. Voting entails me driving less than a mile to my local community center/church to wait in a line of about ten people, cast my vote and leave within the span of ten minutes. All of this is perfectly reasonable to me. Online voting opens the door to gross misrepresentation. I do think mandatory voting is an incredibly interesting topic of debate, and I was actually on my way to post the very same article. Certainly there are advantages, and particularly for the Dems, as a large portion of non-voters are minorities more closely aligned with liberal ideology. There are also inherent disadvantages, most notably unleashing a massive population of uneducated non-voters who would now be forced to inject their misguided views/opinions into a democracy that quite frankly does not value their opinion and has no need of it. There is a reason majority rules, as opposed to appeasing everyone, and that is because a lot of people, in every country, are idiots. Yeah. So... you have a driver's license and a car. Now imagine you are a poor latino and have to take the bus 10 miles instead of 3, and get told that your green card is not a legal ID documentation, and you need a legal state ID instead, which you can get at a different office, 10 miles in the other direction. People who do not have the wherewithal to get a driver's license or other form photo ID have such a hobbled capacity that they should not be voting anyway. I'm sorry if your sarcasm is lost on me, but that's an absolutely stupid statement. I can be better educated on voting issues and not have a driver's license for a myriad of reasons (disability, no car and no reason to own one, my bloody freedom to decide whether or not I have one) that have absolutely nothing to do with my capacity to vote. What an arbitrary, and frankly, stupid qualifier for whether or not i get to exercise my right to vote.
If you don't want to get a driver's license or other photo ID, that's your problem. And feel free to make a compelling argument that a certain class person who wants a photo ID cannot get one.
|
On March 20 2015 02:30 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. Then a birth certificate or proof of citizenship would be more appropriate than something like a driver's license, no? You guys DO have a way to prove your citizenship besides being able to drive SUV's, right?
i am not sure there is a "more appropriate" here. government issued ids (passports, drivers' licenses, identification cards) are sufficient in my mind. birth certificates are unnecessary and do not have a photo, and i am not sure what you mean by proof of citizenship.
the only thing you need to show is that the government says you are a specific person with a photo that the poll place can look at to make sure you are that person. this is what they already do. why is this a bad thing?
|
I don't think it's arbitrary to require voter ID, there is a compelling interest in making sure only people who are eligible to vote do so. You can tell that serving that interest isn't what the Republicans are doing though. The Don Yeltons and Mike Turzais of the world go right out and say it's for partisan advantage. And even if they had the good sense to keep quiet about it, the provisions of the bills accompanying the voter ID requirements typically restrict voting in other ways unrelated to fraud. So at least some of the bills are unquestionably about voter suppression.
|
On March 20 2015 02:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:19 goiflin wrote:On March 20 2015 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 01:48 Acrofales wrote:On March 20 2015 00:31 always_winter wrote:On March 20 2015 00:12 Velr wrote:
Uhm... Isn't it unnessesary hard to vote in the US?
Why go for mandatory voting if you might as well first make it EASY and QUICK for people to vote...
Hint: If there are waiting times before your voting locals, your doing something wrong. Voting is incredibly quick and easy to do in the US. Applying for my voter ID entailed all of me driving three miles to my local civic center, submitting my driver's license and signing a form, and then receiving the ID card in the mail one week later. Voting entails me driving less than a mile to my local community center/church to wait in a line of about ten people, cast my vote and leave within the span of ten minutes. All of this is perfectly reasonable to me. Online voting opens the door to gross misrepresentation. I do think mandatory voting is an incredibly interesting topic of debate, and I was actually on my way to post the very same article. Certainly there are advantages, and particularly for the Dems, as a large portion of non-voters are minorities more closely aligned with liberal ideology. There are also inherent disadvantages, most notably unleashing a massive population of uneducated non-voters who would now be forced to inject their misguided views/opinions into a democracy that quite frankly does not value their opinion and has no need of it. There is a reason majority rules, as opposed to appeasing everyone, and that is because a lot of people, in every country, are idiots. Yeah. So... you have a driver's license and a car. Now imagine you are a poor latino and have to take the bus 10 miles instead of 3, and get told that your green card is not a legal ID documentation, and you need a legal state ID instead, which you can get at a different office, 10 miles in the other direction. People who do not have the wherewithal to get a driver's license or other form photo ID have such a hobbled capacity that they should not be voting anyway. I'm sorry if your sarcasm is lost on me, but that's an absolutely stupid statement. I can be better educated on voting issues and not have a driver's license for a myriad of reasons (disability, no car and no reason to own one, my bloody freedom to decide whether or not I have one) that have absolutely nothing to do with my capacity to vote. What an arbitrary, and frankly, stupid qualifier for whether or not i get to exercise my right to vote. If you don't want to get a driver's license or other photo ID, that's your problem. And feel free to make a compelling argument that a certain class person who wants a photo ID cannot get one.
Other forms of photo id would be more than fine. Just not driver's licenses. Ever. I'm an idiot who didnt even read the "other form of photo id" part of the statement. My bad.
|
On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection.
That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary voter ID? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems.
The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth).
In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote.
And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address?
EDIT: ok. I seem to be misunderstanding some things. The voter ID laws cover any kind of voter ID. It seems somewhat insane that there are still places that require absolutely no ID at the polling place. According to wikipedia: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C. do not require ID to vote.
How the hell do they stop people from showing up in multiple different polling stations (or even repeatedly at the same one) and voting?
|
On March 20 2015 02:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2015 02:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:05 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2015 02:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 02:01 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 01:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2015 00:49 zlefin wrote:On March 20 2015 00:37 xDaunt wrote:
So is there actually a consensus around here now that voter ID laws are, in fact, generally reasonable? the issue was never with voter id laws in general, but how they tend to be used in America, and why they were pushed by the republican party. A majority of the public wants them. The laws aren't always flawless, but that's something to be corrected, rather than bullshitted over. if you can fix all the flaws in them fine. but it's not bullshitting when the intent behind the laws actually proposed was nefarious. Also that the laws don't address an actual need. Statements from liars like yourself is what is nefarious. are you going to call a statement like "repulbicans pushing voter id law" nefarious lying? it's a pretty obvious fact. Don't reply to me if you aren't going to read my post. He claimed the intent was nefarious. Unless he can prove the intent, he is lying (again). he could be advancing that as an argument, and advancing an argument short of absolute proof is not lying. intent can be supported from advantages gained by the short term enforcement of ID requirement. it can also be gathered from legislative priorities of republican state legislatures. e.g. http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/ No, he wrote it as a statement of fact. He is a confirmed, repeated liar.
You need to take it easy with the personal attacks lately. zlefin was absolutely right that many of the voter id laws that have been pushed by Republicans in several states were put forward in order to make it harder to vote for people who would have a tendency to vote Democrat. That's not a lie, that's a fact.
|
On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2015 02:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 20 2015 02:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 20 2015 02:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
republicans want voting id laws to keep minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people away from the polls.
democrats want mandatory voting to get minorities, low socioeconomic classes, woman, young people to vote because they pretty much are guaranteed to vote for democrats disproportionately.
both will make up pretextual shit to justify their positions, but what it comes down to is their own self interest.
lets not beat around the bush. If you want to frame it that way, fine, but there isn't really much doubt regarding where courts are going to fall on the issue. i agree with voting id laws. you shouldnt be allowed to vote unless you can prove who you are, but thats not why republicans want it and democrats oppose it. and, yes, the courts will likely come down on the side of voting id laws since its a fraud protection. That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems. The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth). In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote. And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address?
i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
