EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 301
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:28 Souma wrote: The only way Voter ID will get the okay from the courts is if one) the IDs don't cost anything, and two) there is a sufficient amount of time for voters to get them. If they meet those stipulations, then it's a bit hard arguing against Voter IDs. Meh, I make the argument that even illegal immigrants are affected by our laws, pay taxes, and contribute to our economy so it's not completely unreasonable to think that they should get a say in all those laws. Citizenship in general is a rather silly concept. "I was randomly born on the correct side of an imaginary line, YAY ME!" But I do agree, assuming we're keeping citizenship as a thing then if those two conditions are met you'd have a hard time arguing against voter ID. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I honestly don't know how much the imposition of those regulations will cost. I thought they just say "here's the new rules kids, now play nice." I mean, they're already inspecting / regulating the plants for other reasons. Beats me how it really works though... Auditing the methods for measurement and the EPA having the materials and procedures to take measurements of their own. This makes inspections take longer, meaning either reducing the rate of inspection or reducing the number of aspects inspected. At the end of the day, you get 1 more line on a spreadsheet of plant environmental performance, but the checks behind that number are pretty substantial. On June 26 2013 05:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Possibly allow states to take others, their neighboring states, to court in regards to waste etc. Heck the cases would pop up overnight. That's an interesting idea. I wonder how much the Federal government would have to be involved though. Would they provide the inspectors/regulators on a case by case basis, or just provide the criteria for judgement? I guess that will be answered in the near future. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I think it's mainly through executive action (the EPA will just impose CO2 limits from what I've read), so there's not much the House can do about it. It's a huge blow to coal, for sure, and the economies that rely on coal mining. Something will need to be done to help those areas make whatever transition they need to make. Increased access to export markets would certainly help. That's how the EPA operates. Unelected boards and officials declaring by fiat you may not do this, you may not do any more than this every day/month/year, etc. Only massive public outcry makes them think twice. You learn months afterwards that they held a meeting on proposed changes attended only by environmentalist groups pushing for them. Unelected, with the power to fine and shut down, driving up costs that the American consumer dutifully blames on greedy executives. It's a pretty nice, and legal, racket. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
Dallas county went blue in the last presidential election. Fort Worth still went red but it's a really small city and it's redneck enough that cars driving by scream "faggot" at me and my friends when we walk down the streets downtown.[/QUOTE] Ft. Worth is by no means a small city... its about the size of boston. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:28 Souma wrote: The only way Voter ID will get the okay from the courts is if one) the IDs don't cost anything, and two) there is a sufficient amount of time for voters to get them. If they meet those stipulations, then it's a bit hard arguing against Voter IDs. Idk, with this current set of judges it will probably be okay regardless. I want to see a challenge to the IDs on the basis that they do not prove citizenship nor a lack of one disproves it. If immigration reform goes through, there may be a push to give immigrants state issued (provisional) driver's licenses before citizenship is established, which could undermine the whole thing. Of course, this is all talking out of my backside at this point, so who knows. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Or am I mistaking the intended purpose of voter IDs? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
To mordek: The problems in the last election were one) the IDs cost money and therefore could be considered a poll tax, and two) there was not nearly enough time for voters to get one. Knowledge had nothing to do with it afaik. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Only problem with that is Senior Citizens who may or may not have a driver's license but no photo ID. I reject this notion that "old people might not have an ID" To collect welfare,ss, medicare or any other social benefits they have to have a government issued and approved id. If they have none of these things they have more problems then not being able to vote. Even homeless people are issued an ID for no cost. On June 26 2013 05:56 mordek wrote: I thought the main arguments agains the cards was it provides a gate for people to vote and there's not supposed to be anything preventing people from voting. It makes sense to me to verify identity of people voting though. Is it the burden of knowledge you need to get your voter ID card well before voting? Its really not that big of a barrier to entry. To be able to register to vote is a much larger barrier to entry to prove where you live. This idea we should just trust people to tell the truth about who they are is just outright inviting untraceable voter fraud. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:57 Sermokala wrote: I reject this notion that "old people might not have an ID" To collect welfare,ss, medicare or any other social benefits they have to have a government issued and approved id. If they have none of these things they have more problems then not being able to vote. Even homeless people are issued an ID for no cost. You must have missed the word photo. Besides SS, and Medicare cards do not have picture ID's afaik. Just name and medicare #. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You must have missed the word photo. Besides SS, and Medicare cards do not have picture ID's afaik. Just name and medicare #. but to receive ss and to redeem medicare at a hospital you need to provide a photo id. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On June 26 2013 05:57 Sermokala wrote: I reject this notion that "old people might not have an ID" To collect welfare,ss, medicare or any other social benefits they have to have a government issued and approved id. If they have none of these things they have more problems then not being able to vote. Even homeless people are issued an ID for no cost. Its really not that big of a barrier to entry. To be able to register to vote is a much larger barrier to entry to prove where you live. This idea we should just trust people to tell the truth about who they are is just outright inviting untraceable voter fraud. Is there any reason to believe that untraceable voter fraud is a widespread problem? Is this problem so large that it is worth the inevitable decline in voting that would result from this change with respect to certain demographics of eligible voters? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:05 Shiori wrote: Is there any reason to believe that untraceable voter fraud is a widespread problem? Is this problem so large that it is worth the inevitable decline in voting that would result from this change with respect to certain demographics of eligible voters? We don't know if its a problem or not. there are many precincts in cities that have more then 100% voter registration every election. There are many precincts that report only 1 or 2 votes for the guy under R and 800 or so for the guy under D every election. I don't see why the onus is on not having a secure voting system to decide our nations collective leaders together. Other countries have to think its a complete joke that you don't have to prove who you are to vote. We all want elections to be as legitimate as possible right? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:05 Shiori wrote: Is there any reason to believe that untraceable voter fraud is a widespread problem? Is this problem so large that it is worth the inevitable decline in voting that would result from this change with respect to certain demographics of eligible voters? I don't think a decline in voting is inevitable because of the law change. It could go either way. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I don't think a decline in voting is inevitable because of the law change. It could go either way. I don't really have a problem with the law per se. I'm just curious as to your statement here. If voting now requires some particular condition that it didn't previously have, then doesn't that almost necessarily imply by way of probability that some people who otherwise would have voted won't vote? Say the current situation is you need "X" to vote. If the new situation is you need "X" and "Y" to vote, then by way of probability, the chances of being an eligible voter who doesn't satisfy these two conditions are necessarily higher than the current situation unless having X implies having Y and vice versa. Is that the case? I could be completely wrong. | ||
KwarK
United States43223 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:07 Sermokala wrote: We don't know if its a problem or not. there are many precincts in cities that have more then 100% voter registration every election. There are many precincts that report only 1 or 2 votes for the guy under R and 800 or so for the guy under D every election. I don't see why the onus is on not having a secure voting system to decide our nations collective leaders together. Other countries have to think its a complete joke that you don't have to prove who you are to vote. We all want elections to be as legitimate as possible right? No. This is a false conclusion. We do not want all elections to be as legitimate as possible, if we did then each and every one of us would count every single ballot cast and if we didn't all come up with the same number then we'd do it all over again until we agreed on the number or all starved to death. But we don't, we want it to be legitimate enough for the right guy to be elected so we can all go on with our lives. Proposing disenfranchising a segment of the population and discouraging people to vote in the name of increased legitimacy when nobody anywhere is in any doubt that the current system is producing a legitimate victor is really, really dumb. Statements like "we want it to be as legitimate as possible" or "we want our kids to be as safe as possible" are almost always used to justify a really dumb idea. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 26 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote: I don't really have a problem with the law per se. I'm just curious as to your statement here. If voting now requires some particular condition that it didn't previously have, then doesn't that almost necessarily imply by way of probability that some people who otherwise would have voted won't vote? Say the current situation is you need "X" to vote. If the new situation is you need "X" and "Y" to vote, then by way of probability, the chances of being an eligible voter who doesn't satisfy these two conditions is necessarily less than the current situation unless having X implies having Y and vice versa. Is that the case? I could be completely wrong. If you do not have "Y" and need it, you can get it. Those currently with "X" and "Y" do not always vote. Requiring "X" and "Y" to vote may spur more of them to vote because of perceptions of fairness or unfairness or other reasons. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. | ||
| ||
