|
|
On October 29 2012 06:00 xDaunt 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 Sure, and I am perfectly open to this possibility. However, right now I see a black population with really obvious social and cultural problems, which are clearly not whitey's fault, that are holding back the black population, and no one has the balls to suggest the black population may be fucking itself because everyone who does gets called a racist or any number of other derogatory terms. The blacks even turned on Bill Cosby when he dared to suggest that the black's problems may be self-inflicted. All that I am saying is let's fix have blacks fix their obvious problems first before we do any more aggressive social engineering to help them out in the event that there are real structural problems that need to be addressed.
I think part of the issue is that its undeniable that not all of the African American community's problems are their own fault. No one denies that they themselves contribute as well. However, as a nation that harmed them to begin with, I think a lot of people would prefer to overly help as opposed to under help. Its imperative that the debt is settled, even if it means we go a bit too far.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote: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:
[quote]
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? There's major benefits to having more people participate in politics, including voting. Structural disenfranchiment undermines the stabilizing function democracy has on society overall, and increases the risk of violent political opposition to the government. So yes, compelling people to vote, or at the very least not creating artificial barriers, is a good thing. It's a benefit to society to have a mentally retarded (and I mean this not as derogatory) person vote? I don't buy that for a second. I think it's beneficial to PERMIT them to vote. But I don't think an ID is an unreasonable requirement for someone to obtain so they can vote. It's not like ID's are denied to people because they are of a certain race or demographic. We already place certain burdens on voters, such as applying for an absentee ballot or traveling to the local polling station. An ID requirement is NOT going to be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.
Attempts at disenfranchisement went much further too, by the way. They tried to close down DMVs in Democratic districts and extend hours in Republican districts. They also tried to end same-day registration in some areas iirc.
|
On October 29 2012 06:07 oneofthem wrote:
i think the drug trade is a far more grave threat to the living condition of americans than anything going on in the middle east. fix that and we can have somewhat of a fresh start for some of these communities.
I think this is an incredibly salient jumping off point in terms of discussing proper societal race equality. Having huge numbers of voting age males continuously pulled out of society at the behest of archaic morality driven drug law is a surefire way to ensure a culture's continued detriment.
|
ah, good old prison-industrial complex
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:07 oneofthem wrote:
i think the drug trade is a far more grave threat to the living condition of americans than anything going on in the middle east. fix that and we can have somewhat of a fresh start for some of these communities. I think this is an incredibly salient jumping off point in terms of discussing proper societal race equality. Having huge numbers of voting age males continuously pulled out of society at the behest of archaic morality driven drug law is a surefire way to ensure a culture's continued detriment.
Speaking of which, wouldn't the drug war also be an example of racial discrimination?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On October 29 2012 06:10 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote: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:
[quote]
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? There's major benefits to having more people participate in politics, including voting. Structural disenfranchiment undermines the stabilizing function democracy has on society overall, and increases the risk of violent political opposition to the government. So yes, compelling people to vote, or at the very least not creating artificial barriers, is a good thing. It's a benefit to society to have a mentally retarded (and I mean this not as derogatory) person vote? I don't buy that for a second. I think it's beneficial to PERMIT them to vote. But I don't think an ID is an unreasonable requirement for someone to obtain so they can vote. It's not like ID's are denied to people because they are of a certain race or demographic. We already place certain burdens on voters, such as applying for an absentee ballot or traveling to the local polling station. An ID requirement is NOT going to be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak. To play devil's advocate, is the (lack thereof) of voting ID currently leading to actual voter fraud? If not then what is the reasoning behind bringing this issue up at this time?
There is strong evidence of some voter fraud. It does happen. We know this. How much is anyone's guess, but I don't believe it's an epidemic or anything. It happens only in isolated incidents, I would think.
The Voter ID law gives a sense of security and fairness to the process because we can eliminate almost every form of voter fraud out there with it. Because we don't track who voted for who, you need to control fraud at the point of entry -- you can't backdoor the problem. It does no good to challenge a voter after the fact -- you don't know which ballot is theirs.
My belief is that the increased good will and fairness of the election is more important than the small amount of fringe voters who may not vote because of it. While both effects are not gigantic, I think the first is more important to a democracy than the second.
In other words Fair elections > Compelled voting.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:16 oneofthem wrote: http://www.isidewith.com/ i got 90% jill. to the right of her on, of all things, drilling.
iirc I don't agree with Jill on anything in regards to foreign policy. I lean more towards Obama in that case.
|
On October 29 2012 06:16 sam!zdat wrote:
ah, good old prison-industrial complex
eh, they do need to cut some of these penalties.
As some of you know, I do studies on Islamic Law. One of the interesting topics brought up was the tangential benefits to Sharia law. When you steal, you lose a hand. While it sounds barbaric, it has benefits as well. Your punishment is swift and done. You can go on with your life and families don't lose their breadwinner to a prison. It allows a criminal to pay their price and move on with their life.
Now, I'm not advocating this, but I think it's an interesting perspective on the problems that our system compounds on not only criminals but also their families. I would love to see someone do some research on this topic.
That said, I'm all for lowering sentences on non-violent crimes. There is no reason someone needs to spend more than a month in jail unless they have serious issues or are repeat offenders
|
On October 29 2012 06:18 Souma wrote:iirc I don't agree with Jill on anything in regards to foreign policy. I lean more towards Obama in that case.
I was 82% Johnson, 80% Romney iirc
|
On October 29 2012 06:06 Boraz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:50 Boraz wrote:
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. Quoting myself seem as though everybody posted past it on other topics.
Is your statement relevant to the current discussion in the thread? If you just butt in with a random opinion about "I think candidate X is blah blah blah" when people are discussing other things, chances are no one is going to address it. You've given an opinion which has been stated at least a thousand times in the history of this thread.
|
On October 29 2012 06:16 oneofthem wrote: http://www.isidewith.com/ i got 90% jill. to the right of her on, of all things, drilling.
Although I got 95% Stein and 89% Obama, I disagree with how a lot of the questions are worded. More than 75% of the questions deserve essay answers as opposed to multiple choice.
|
I have idea
Do your taxes and send them in
Voter ID comes back with tax statement or w/e
Tadaaa!
|
There is strong evidence of some voter fraud. It does happen. We know this. How much is anyone's guess, but I don't believe it's an epidemic or anything. It happens only in isolated incidents, I would think.
Actually the Elections bureau has come out and said there's only been like 10 cases in a decade. It's a really a nonissue.
Also you realize the GoP has been accursed of more voter fraud in the past 2 weeks than has been reported in 2 decades otherwise?
|
yet another reason to legalize marijuana
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:16 sam!zdat wrote:
ah, good old prison-industrial complex eh, they do need to cut some of these penalties. As some of you know, I do studies on Islamic Law. One of the interesting topics brought up was the tangential benefits to Sharia law. When you steal, you lose a hand. While it sounds barbaric, it has benefits as well. Your punishment is swift and done. You can go on with your life and families don't lose their breadwinner to a prison. It allows a criminal to pay their price and move on with their life. Now, I'm not advocating this, but I think it's an interesting perspective on the problems that our system compounds on not only criminals but also their families. I would love to see someone do some research on this topic. That said, I'm all for lowering sentences on non-violent crimes. There is no reason someone needs to spend more than a month in jail unless they have serious issues or are repeat offenders
While I agree with the general cut and thrust there, you'll be somewhat handicapped as a breadwinner if you're missing one hand 
94% Stein, 80% Johnson on that there quiz. I'm not overly familiar with the third parties, other than that Stein's a Green, what's Johnson like?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the libertarian party is like, america circa 1700?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:24 farvacola wrote:Although I got 95% Stein and 89% Obama, I disagree with how a lot of the questions are worded. More than 75% of the questions deserve essay answers as opposed to multiple choice.
Yeah... for many of the questions it's more like a "It depends," rather than a Yes or No.
|
On October 29 2012 06:25 Unholy_Prince wrote:Show nested quote +There is strong evidence of some voter fraud. It does happen. We know this. How much is anyone's guess, but I don't believe it's an epidemic or anything. It happens only in isolated incidents, I would think. Actually the Elections bureau has come out and said there's only been like 10 cases in a decade. It's a really a nonissue. Also you realize the GoP has been accursed of more voter fraud in the past 2 weeks than has been reported in 2 decades otherwise?
I can guarantee there are more than 10 cases. I've personally seen more than 10 cases, and I've only worked a single election cycle. Most are actually just mistakes, but that doesn't make it OK.
And for me, it's not about Red or Blue. I could care less who's cheating. I want to stop the cheating.
|
On October 29 2012 06:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
I have idea
Do your taxes and send them in
Voter ID comes back with tax statement or w/e
Tadaaa!
Haha, I'd love for this to be true. I support a national ID card. So that we can do stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
