On September 22 2012 10:32 Defacer wrote: Hey Americans,
Just a reminder to get your firearm permit or driver's licence before the election!
(You should watch the video, it's pretty funny.)
Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Because in the process, you'll do more harm than good by enacting an effective poll tax on the millions of citizens who do not have some form of photo ID.
How hard is it to get an ID? If you are a citizen you should have a birth certificate and a social security card, last time I checked those are the only things you need to get one. If you lost those, you can get new ones, also not very hard to do.
it costs money, and is therefore a poll tax
edit: make it free, make the place to get it well-staffed and open evenings and weekends, and you get no complaint from me
Actually, from what I've seen, the States that have passed these voter I.D. laws offer such IDs free.
Usually it saves them the trouble of arguing that it isn't a poll tax when challenge. I have no issues with free ID and then requiring ID at the voting stations. In fact, a free ID should be standard - makes it a lot easier to keep track of people.
I'm pretty confused about this issue. From the debate, it seems like the argument against voter ID boils down "it's unnecessary tedium and it will discourage marginal voters". Marginal voters being mostly those people in big cities who don't want to wait in long lines, who might mostly vote Democratic.
Is that a totally unfair assessment? IMO it seems like the bush we're all dancing around.
On September 22 2012 10:51 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Because in the process, you'll do more harm than good by enacting an effective poll tax on the millions of citizens who do not have some form of photo ID.
How hard is it to get an ID? If you are a citizen you should have a birth certificate and a social security card, last time I checked those are the only things you need to get one. If you lost those, you can get new ones, also not very hard to do.
it costs money, and is therefore a poll tax
edit: make it free, make the place to get it well-staffed and open evenings and weekends, and you get no complaint from me
Actually, from what I've seen, the States that have passed these voter I.D. laws offer such IDs free.
Usually it saves them the trouble of arguing that it isn't a poll tax when challenge. I have no issues with free ID and then requiring ID at the voting stations. In fact, a free ID should be standard - makes it a lot easier to keep track of people.
I'm pretty confused about this issue. From the debate, it seems like the argument against voter ID boils down "it's unnecessary tedium and it will discourage marginal voters". Marginal voters being mostly those people in big cities who don't want to wait in long lines, who might mostly vote Democratic.
Is that a totally unfair assessment? IMO it seems like the bush we're all dancing around.
To me - it's the cost and the lack of support at the centers.
Cost - I don't think there should be any. Lack of support - A state ID should be for life - renewal aside (and renewal nowadays can be done online or via mail-in form). So if given a free ID and a dedicated center for state ID unassociated with other DMV (or at least in NYC, it's the DMV) roles, I do think it will increase state ID registration - which is good for census too. Thus - marginal voters, while discouraged by long lines, can understand that they will get an ID for life and not have to deal with the DMV.
On September 22 2012 10:51 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Just got my concealed handgun permit yesterday. I'm locked and loaded.
Dumb video. Why wouldn't you need a picture I.D. with your name and a photo of you on it? That would make it so easy to vote as someone else (or someone who is dead, which has happened in the past)
Voter fraud of the sort these I.D. laws are supposedly meant to combat is actually very, very rare.
Why not prevent it?
Because in the process, you'll do more harm than good by enacting an effective poll tax on the millions of citizens who do not have some form of photo ID.
How hard is it to get an ID? If you are a citizen you should have a birth certificate and a social security card, last time I checked those are the only things you need to get one. If you lost those, you can get new ones, also not very hard to do.
it costs money, and is therefore a poll tax
edit: make it free, make the place to get it well-staffed and open evenings and weekends, and you get no complaint from me
Actually, from what I've seen, the States that have passed these voter I.D. laws offer such IDs free.
Usually it saves them the trouble of arguing that it isn't a poll tax when challenge. I have no issues with free ID and then requiring ID at the voting stations. In fact, a free ID should be standard - makes it a lot easier to keep track of people.
I'm pretty confused about this issue. From the debate, it seems like the argument against voter ID boils down "it's unnecessary tedium and it will discourage marginal voters". Marginal voters being mostly those people in big cities who don't want to wait in long lines, who might mostly vote Democratic.
Is that a totally unfair assessment? IMO it seems like the bush we're all dancing around.
There's more that goes into the Voter ID debate and what's been going on. For instance, Republicans requiring some kind of photo ID while shutting down DMVs in Democratic districts and extending business-hours for DMVs in Republican districts. It's all pretty foul.
On September 22 2012 11:43 Elegy wrote: surely we aren't idiotic enough to spout out Marx and other nonsense
ach, it wounds me
prefer a more realistic and holistic view of history?
You mean like the Marxist one?
you wound me...
Meh, if you knew what Marxism was you wouldn't feel that way. You probably think it is about "technological determinism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat."
You should make a topic with your take on Marxism. I honestly would be interested in reading your pros and cons of it.
On September 22 2012 11:43 Elegy wrote: surely we aren't idiotic enough to spout out Marx and other nonsense
ach, it wounds me
prefer a more realistic and holistic view of history?
You mean like the Marxist one?
you wound me...
Meh, if you knew what Marxism was you wouldn't feel that way. You probably think it is about "technological determinism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat."
You should make a topic with your take on Marxism. I honestly would be interested in reading your pros and cons of it.
If you notice, 95% of his posts are one or two liners. I'm not sure he could handle making his own topic.
On September 22 2012 11:43 Elegy wrote: surely we aren't idiotic enough to spout out Marx and other nonsense
ach, it wounds me
prefer a more realistic and holistic view of history?
You mean like the Marxist one?
you wound me...
Meh, if you knew what Marxism was you wouldn't feel that way. You probably think it is about "technological determinism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat."
You should make a topic with your take on Marxism. I honestly would be interested in reading your pros and cons of it.
If you notice, 95% of his posts are one or two liners. I'm not sure he could handle making his own topic.
Surely anyone who has strong beliefs and a will to convince others is capable of typing out a lengthy essay. That said you do have a point, he mostly posts short responses. Nonetheless, he has a different take on things and I kind of wish he'd explain it more in detail so if ever a topic were made by him, I'd read it.
Breaking news! The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anti-competitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
On September 22 2012 11:43 Elegy wrote: surely we aren't idiotic enough to spout out Marx and other nonsense
ach, it wounds me
prefer a more realistic and holistic view of history?
You mean like the Marxist one?
you wound me...
Meh, if you knew what Marxism was you wouldn't feel that way. You probably think it is about "technological determinism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat."
You should make a topic with your take on Marxism. I honestly would be interested in reading your pros and cons of it.
If you notice, 95% of his posts are one or two liners. I'm not sure he could handle making his own topic.
I've enjoyed many long posts of his in the economy thread. Personally I find his arguments very convincing and well articulated.
Breaking news! The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anti-competitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
Breaking news! The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anti-competitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
This isn't the first time it's happened, is it? I wouldn't mind more competition either. Woes of a two-party system.
I hope that both Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein(Go Jill Stein!) make it into the debates, even though they are so soon it might be too late for them. I signed the petition going around for it.
Breaking news! The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anti-competitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
This isn't the first time it's happened, is it? I wouldn't mind more competition either. Woes of a two-party system.
I hope that both Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein(Go Jill Stein!) make it into the debates, even though they are so soon it might be too late for them. I signed the petition going around for it.
The woes of the two-party system indeed ...
It is sad that we are almost forced to vote for the lesser of 2 evils if we don't like either candidate
I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
On September 22 2012 11:43 Elegy wrote: surely we aren't idiotic enough to spout out Marx and other nonsense
ach, it wounds me
prefer a more realistic and holistic view of history?
You mean like the Marxist one?
you wound me...
Meh, if you knew what Marxism was you wouldn't feel that way. You probably think it is about "technological determinism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat."
You should make a topic with your take on Marxism. I honestly would be interested in reading your pros and cons of it.
Hmm, maybe I will. I've thought about it but it's a big task and I've had other things on my plate (applying to grad school, paying rent, pursuing my actual scholarly work, etc). If anybody else would be interested in such a thing, perhaps you would send me a pm to express that interest? (edit: it's one thing talking shit on the internet, it's another thing writing an introductory article on a complicated topic)
On September 22 2012 11:43 Elegy wrote: surely we aren't idiotic enough to spout out Marx and other nonsense
ach, it wounds me
prefer a more realistic and holistic view of history?
You mean like the Marxist one?
you wound me...
Meh, if you knew what Marxism was you wouldn't feel that way. You probably think it is about "technological determinism" and "dictatorship of the proletariat."
You should make a topic with your take on Marxism. I honestly would be interested in reading your pros and cons of it.
If you notice, 95% of his posts are one or two liners. I'm not sure he could handle making his own topic.
Breaking news! The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anti-competitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
This isn't the first time it's happened, is it? I wouldn't mind more competition either. Woes of a two-party system.
I hope that both Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein(Go Jill Stein!) make it into the debates, even though they are so soon it might be too late for them. I signed the petition going around for it.
The woes of the two-party system indeed ...
It is sad that we are almost forced to vote for the lesser of 2 evils if we don't like either candidate
Here's the one thing I think everyone can agree on.
If the US's system wasn't so fubar'ed, I'd vote Jill Stein in an instant. However, that's basically voting for Romney because she has zero chance of making any impact at all, so I'm voting for Obama.
On September 22 2012 13:43 0mar wrote: If the US's system wasn't so fubar'ed, I'd vote Jill Stein in an instant. However, that's basically voting for Romney because she has zero chance of making any impact at all, so I'm voting for Obama.
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values, even people I want to be elected the greens, don't share my goals of space exploration), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
One Dark Templar to another lol, vote for the lesser of the evils until the cause you actually believe in has the smallest of chances of actually happening, then vote for it instead.
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
One Dark Templar to another lol, vote for the lesser of the evils until the cause you actually believe in has the smallest of chances of actually happening, then vote for it instead.
This is how the system wins. It's an enormous prisoner's dilemma. Nobody can make the first move.
What you have to do is revolt by voting third party no matter what.
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
One Dark Templar to another lol, vote for the lesser of the evils until the cause you actually believe in has the smallest of chances of actually happening, then vote for it instead.
Luckily(or not lucky I am not sure) I am not in a swing state, voting for what I believe in and am currently volunteering for, If more people vote third parties, they might have more momentum and support in the future, or at least I hope thats what my vote is going to do, one can dream.
On September 22 2012 13:38 Souma wrote: I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that this two-party system sucks. how2change... like, seriously. How in the world would we be able to change it without the Democrats and Republicans striking us down bilaterally? =/
I am supporting a third party for one, and I am volunteering with their campaign and trying to get representatives in office that represent me(cause right now there are basically zero that share my beliefs/values), I feel if more and more of the country supports third/fourth/fifth parties or whatever, then we might see some amount of change, or at least the illusion of change lol. But yes I do fear the strike down .
Whats sad though, is I would have a really freaking tough decision if I was in a swing state. I would be between a rock and a hard place really. Vote to keep Romney out of office, and continue to leave third parties behind ? Or vote for a cause I actually believe in?
One Dark Templar to another lol, vote for the lesser of the evils until the cause you actually believe in has the smallest of chances of actually happening, then vote for it instead.
This is how the system wins. It's an enormous prisoner's dilemma. Nobody can make the first move.
What you have to do is revolt by voting third party no matter what.
There's only one thing we can do. Put aside our differences and take to the streets. Then once the election system is reformed we can go back to making fun of each other and pointing fingers.
EPT
...
