|
|
On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:[quote] Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea  That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote.
Just exactly who the hell do you think you are that you should get to decide who should and shouldn't be voting? As an avowed opponent to democracy as a concept, I don't see why anyone who is pro-democracy should take anything you say seriously at all.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:[quote] Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote.
It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't.
If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that.
All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification.
|
On October 29 2012 05:41 sam!zdat wrote:
yes but WHY!!
Because they have been coddled by democrats and liberals who let blacks scapegoat whitey for all of their problems rather than hold up the proverbial mirror so that blacks can fix their root cultural problems. Don't get me wrong, blacks have had a rough history. However, the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Affirmative action has been in place to benefit many generations of blacks. Every succeeding generation of Americans gives less of a shit about race than the previous. At what point do blacks finally have to take responsibility for themselves rather than blame their problems on a rigged society. I think that they have reached that point. As I have mentioned before, I have no problem comparing blacks to Asians in the US. I'm not going to rehash everything now, but I firmly believe that the success of Asians in the US is strong evidence that the failure of blacks is not the result of the system being rigged against them.
|
I'm confused on how anybody would vote for Obama anymore. He has lied, and has made our country worse with the unemployment rate. People try to blame Bush, but Obama should have had some improvement in our country in his 4 years...and he had none. It's time for change. It's time to move forward, without Obama.
Also this whole Benghazi thing. Obama didn't send reinforcements. He let those people get murdered. Nobody is even discussing this. The media isn't reporting on it because the media is partial to Liberals, and this story hurts Obama, so they won't report on it. But Obama caused people to die by not sending help. It's been proven help was within an hour, for an attack that went 7 hours. He could have sent help at any point, and did not. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a murderer.
So how can you justify voting for Obama? I'm not saying Romney will be a much better President, but Romney is the lesser of 2 evil's. Obama is going to ruin America, and Romney won't ruin it so much.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
since replying in proportionate measure to this discussion will get me into trouble with the police i'll just go farm some d3.
|
On October 29 2012 05:46 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. you attribute not getting a legal id with social inept? it's like i'm on a gaming website. whoa some of these dudes don't have IDs because they don't have the need for one, like, they don't have a job.
No, he associated legal ID with ineptitude.
And everyone has use for an ID. You need one to get a job almost everywhere. That's why our homeless shelter provided free ID's. You need one to find a job and get out of the shelter.
I know it might come as a shocker to some of you, but I would wager (based on personal experience) that something around 90% of the individuals without ID's are mentally unstable with zero support networks or serious substance abusers. This isn't the poor person. This isn't the minority. It's the dead weight.
|
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional
|
On October 29 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that. All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification.
I'm not deciding who GETS to vote. I'm drawing the line at how much we should COMPEL someone to vote. Everyone GETS to vote, but we shouldn't COMPEL someone who is incapable of functioning in a society to vote. What's the benefit?
|
On October 29 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:46 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:
[quote]
The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning.
They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. you attribute not getting a legal id with social inept? it's like i'm on a gaming website. whoa some of these dudes don't have IDs because they don't have the need for one, like, they don't have a job. No, he associated legal ID with ineptitude. And everyone has use for an ID. You need one to get a job almost everywhere. That's why our homeless shelter provided free ID's. You need one to find a job and get out of the shelter. I know it might come as a shocker to some of you, but I would wager (based on personal experience) that something around 90% of the individuals without ID's are mentally unstable with zero support networks or serious substance abusers. This isn't the poor person. This isn't the minority. It's the dead weight.
People have accused me of strawmanning, and I was thinking, "maybe I shouldn't accuse people of being anti-democracy for supporting disenfranchisement", but then you go full-on fascist and call the people you want disenfranchised "dead weight"? Seriously?!
|
The electoral system is god-awful nowadays. The fact that the majority of the country may vote for one man who does not get to be president just sucks. The college was founded because back in the late 18th century it took great amounts of time for news of people to travel. The common man only knew much about politicians from his state, so the lawmakers decided that the electoral college system was necessary to narrow the field. It turned out to be almost entirely unnecessary; this only happened in 1800 and 1824. In modern times, mass communications and the two-party system have led to a country where everyone can know as much as they want about the two candidates regardless of where they hail from. And with the electoral system, a great amount of voters simply don't matter. Republicans in California or New York might not even bother voting, and the same goes with Democrats in Texas and other southern states. These people shouldn't be ignored. We should decide the elections by popular vote.
|
On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:
[quote]
The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning.
They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that. All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification. I'm not deciding who GETS to vote. I'm drawing the line at how much we should COMPEL someone to vote. Everyone GETS to vote, but we shouldn't COMPEL someone who is incapable of functioning in a society to vote. What's the benefit?
Nobody is talking about compelling anyone to vote. Please find ONE post (not by you) in this thread about compelling people to vote as an argument against voter ID laws.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:Because they have been coddled to by democrats and liberals who let blacks scapegoat whitey for all of their problems rather than hold up the proverbial mirror so that blacks can fix their root cultural problems. Don't get me wrong, blacks have had a rough history. However, the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Affirmative action has been in place to benefit many generations of blacks. Every succeeding generation of Americans gives less of a shit about race than the previous. At what point do blacks finally have to responsibility for themselves rather than blame their problems on a rigged society. I think that they have reached that point. As I have mentioned before, I have no problem comparing blacks to Asians in the US. I'm not going to rehash everything now, but I firmly believe that the success of Asians in the US is strong evidence that the failure of blacks is not the result of the system being rigged against them.
And you wonder why people think Republicans may be racist... o.O
The Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Just 15 years ago you could still see signs in Missouri that said "blacks not allowed" yet the local authorities turned a blind eye to it all (anecdote from my uncle who lives in Missouri). Considering blacks have been marginalized for a good two centuries, it's going to take a lot more time (and even more effort) to actually stamp out racism and the "cultural" problems the black communities face.
Citing Asians is not a good example. We were never as marginalized as blacks. Plus, culturally, we're just more submissive to government, injustice, etc. so we just keep on truckin' even if people shit in our faces. It's a huge problem I have with Asians. Look at China or Vietnam if you want to see what happens when you just sit around and let people step all over you.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:46 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:
[quote]
The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning.
They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. you attribute not getting a legal id with social inept? it's like i'm on a gaming website. whoa some of these dudes don't have IDs because they don't have the need for one, like, they don't have a job. No, he associated legal ID with ineptitude. And everyone has use for an ID. You need one to get a job almost everywhere. That's why our homeless shelter provided free ID's. You need one to find a job and get out of the shelter. I know it might come as a shocker to some of you, but I would wager (based on personal experience) that something around 90% of the individuals without ID's are mentally unstable with zero support networks or serious substance abusers. This isn't the poor person. This isn't the minority. It's the dead weight.
i would agree that these people are probably not very productive, but it is still not a requirement for franchise.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 29 2012 05:41 sam!zdat wrote:
yes but WHY!! Because they have been coddled to by democrats and liberals who let blacks scapegoat whitey for all of their problems rather than hold up the proverbial mirror so that blacks can fix their root cultural problems. Don't get me wrong, blacks have had a rough history. However, the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Affirmative action has been in place to benefit many generations of blacks. Every succeeding generation of Americans gives less of a shit about race than the previous. At what point do blacks finally have to responsibility for themselves rather than blame their problems on a rigged society. I think that they have reached that point. As I have mentioned before, I have no problem comparing blacks to Asians in the US. I'm not going to rehash everything now, but I firmly believe that the success of Asians in the US is strong evidence that the failure of blacks is not the result of the system being rigged against them. And you wonder why people think Republicans may be racist... o.O The Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Just 15 years ago you could still see signs in Missouri that said "blacks not allowed" yet the local authorities turned a blind eye to it all (anecdote from my uncle who lives in Missouri). Considering blacks have been marginalized for a good two centuries, it's going to take a lot more time (and even more effort) to actually stamp out racism and the "cultural" problems the black communities face. Citing Asians is not a good example. We were never as marginalized as blacks. Plus, culturally, we're just more submissive to government, injustice, etc. so we just keep on truckin' even if people shit in our faces. It's a huge problem I have with Asians. Look at China or Vietnam if you want to see what happens when you just sit around and let people step all over you.
asians are also voluntary migratory groups that are then by their nature purposefully here. they are culturally preserved, rather than torn apart like scattered african families. thousands of years of tradition coupled with the immigrant condition makes for pretty powerful work drive. even still, they tend to be underrepresented in leadership positions.
it is a testament to the human spirit that african americans are doing as well as they are now. but, if you are looking at the situation in america and your strongest reaction is, damn these liberals, then you have problems.
|
On October 29 2012 05:53 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:46 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. you attribute not getting a legal id with social inept? it's like i'm on a gaming website. whoa some of these dudes don't have IDs because they don't have the need for one, like, they don't have a job. No, he associated legal ID with ineptitude. And everyone has use for an ID. You need one to get a job almost everywhere. That's why our homeless shelter provided free ID's. You need one to find a job and get out of the shelter. I know it might come as a shocker to some of you, but I would wager (based on personal experience) that something around 90% of the individuals without ID's are mentally unstable with zero support networks or serious substance abusers. This isn't the poor person. This isn't the minority. It's the dead weight. People have accused me of strawmanning, and I was thinking, "maybe I shouldn't accuse people of being anti-democracy for supporting disenfranchisement", but then you go full-on fascist and call the people you want disenfranchised "dead weight"? Seriously?!
Well, many of those people ARE dead weight on a society, objectively. That's not to say they aren't still people with a certain dignity, but in the context of being productive members of society, most of them are dead weight. They require our support to function, and do not provide a return. They consume more than they produce, so to speak.
|
On October 29 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional
Only a little? Of all the times to mince words, we need a Trotsky here, not a Stalin :p
|
yes, it's important to understand that all African culture was intentionally stamped out by the slave trade. And then you complain because they don't have strong, healthy cultural structures. (edit: at a time when postmodernity is destroying EVERYBODY's cultural structures, moreover)
|
On October 29 2012 05:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional Only a little? Of all the times to mince words, we need a Trotsky here, not a Stalin :p
I'm trying to be conciliatory, farv. Let me pretend to agree with people more than I actually do, that's the strategy. it's dialectical bro
|
On October 29 2012 05:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:46 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. you attribute not getting a legal id with social inept? it's like i'm on a gaming website. whoa some of these dudes don't have IDs because they don't have the need for one, like, they don't have a job. No, he associated legal ID with ineptitude. And everyone has use for an ID. You need one to get a job almost everywhere. That's why our homeless shelter provided free ID's. You need one to find a job and get out of the shelter. I know it might come as a shocker to some of you, but I would wager (based on personal experience) that something around 90% of the individuals without ID's are mentally unstable with zero support networks or serious substance abusers. This isn't the poor person. This isn't the minority. It's the dead weight. i would agree that these people are probably not very productive, but it is still not a requirement for voting.
I can agree with that, but should we be require to go door to door to collect votes? Is it not already requirement that they travel to a polling station to cast their vote? Is it that harmful to add on a trip to the DMV for the 2-3% that don't have an ID? I would argue that it is not. It is microscopic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
he's like an obama wannabe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
