Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 551
New ID voter law?Page 23 of 29    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)

Actually it's to keep from having a totalitarian government take over the country. It isn't about civil war it's not being under the thumb of an oppressive government. It use to be something people felt was worth fighting for. That whole liberty thing. That thing you think is a myth. That thing you think is just a 'natural' state of man or whatever mythical association you ascribe to its existence.

Yes, you do not get it. You could but you prefer to believe those that promise you peace and freedom by their fiat. Because they care. Hahaha.


Ya mean that ability to think like I wish without government interference...to marry whom I wish without being told whom...defense of marriage ring a bell shirlock....talk about taking away civil liberties...there's some in here who think states rights should allow states to discriminate against whomever they chose...certian states wish to have state religions...of course supreme court rulings mean nothing to states that would just love personhood...have I gone over your head yet???because every last one of these states that are attempting to take away citizens rights and restrict their religious and sexual beliefs are F'n RED states Yanno, your fascist brothers....

The same ones that want to restrict voting rights of democrat citizens....all in an attempt to steal elections because the GOP doesn't have the numbers to do it any other way...

Talk about totalitarian governments...all those rightwingnut evangelical religious red states are totalitarian governments right now...and wish to spread their borders or better yet secede from the union...the traitorous bystards...yanno, those are the same ones that are advocating armed insurrection...aren't you one of those????


Or did you miss that logic in your zeal to declare everyone that doesn't agree with you a traitor.


You don't read so well do you??? Because I cited ppl who wish to secede from the union as traitors and those that advocate civil war as traitors...now if you feel that I included you in this...either you've a comprehension issue or you believe in sedition or civil war..in which case...yes, you are a traitor.


There is a logical and clear justification and need for VoterID's. If you are so happy with background checks and ID's for guns then you should have no problem with VoterID's either


I see deductive reasoning isn'tone of your strong suits...

First...cite me 11,000 cases of voter fraud that were related to voter impersonation....because this is the amount of gun homicides per year in America...HeLL you can't even cite me 5 cases of voter impersonation...

Second, a ballot never killed anyone....but a person with a gun has.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 552
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/10/2013 7:07:19 PM
If you are so happy with background checks and ID's for guns then you should have no problem with VoterID's either. Or did you miss that logic in your zeal...

ROFLMAO

Logic...?!? LOGIC...?!?

ROFLMAO

There is no "logic" in what you state...

First, there is no mass voter fraud going on, unlike the mass killing that lax gun laws incur... You don't have five, ten, fifteen state/federal offices being fraudulently elected each year but, you certainly have that many, and more, killed at a time through lax gun laws...

Second, you don't have individuals going out and killing a dozen or more with a ballot slip, unlike what occurs because of lax gun laws...

to declare everyone that doesn't agree with you a traitor.

Well... in most countries in the world... people who run around talking about instigating civil war because they don't happen to like the results of a democratic election ARE worthy of the label "traitor"...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 553
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/10/2013 7:22:31 PM
Ya mean that ability to think like I wish without government interference...to marry whom I wish without being told whom...defense of marriage ring a bell shirlock....talk about taking away civil liberties


Yes.

The rest of your post was irrelevant and nothing but caricatures meant to make yourself feel like you are on the right

Every social issue you talked about has nothing to do with protections of individual liberty against the government. All those right wing evangelical religious red states want to live their lives how they choose. And how they choose is how they choose. They vote for people to project their views into the federal arena. There are methods for dealing with the issues you brought up. There are policies, procedures and laws and mechanisms that are slower then most like but exist.

Those people that you don't like are also free. You are free to disagree with them. Just as they are free to disagree with you. You just want someone to force them into submission on everything you want. Freedom doesn't work that way.

You have to know what a totalitarian government is before you call those right wing nuts that. The biggest thing they advocated was the removal of church and state impediment as currently defined, the moving of abortion back to state control and the lessening of central federal government involvement in local matters. None of those things are unconscionable or on their face evil or lessening of liberty of individual freedom. Places where they cross lines... again, there are polices and procedures to address that. The federal government isn't the best place for everything. It's too big to be under a single line item law. You can't vote in Alabama what is best for Arizona. It just doesn't work with separations in culture and environmental factors including economics and education.

You then jump into the 'spreading of their borders" which is a total fabrication. The spreading that has occurred over the past 50 years was the spreading of Americanism and the idea of liberty and achievement over equality and force. Some idiot declared this 'the spreading of democracy' and everyone lost the plot. Saying we are supporting the spread of freedom and 'Representative Democracy and Constitutional Republics' doesn't have a great ring to it in speeches.

Then you bounce into the sececeion meme. Isn't that over yet? You may as well cal OWS traitorous bystards yanno... Not being capable of comprehending situations doesn't do your arguments any favors.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/07/occupy-portland-leader-openly-calls-for-overthrowing-the-government-with-a-socialist-revolution/

Do you vote for those that are spearheading a socialist revolution? Do you think it would be possible for such a group that wants such a massive revolution would be willing to corrupt the vote process? DO you think it is wise to account for possibilities?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 554
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/10/2013 7:30:47 PM

Do you think it would be possible for such a group that wants such a massive revolution would be willing to corrupt the vote process? DO you think it is wise to account for possibilities?

What is WISE is to account for "probabilities", not "possibilities"... Have you laid out $100,000 for an 'asteroid-impact proof' shelter yet...? It IS a "possibility", you know...

What is the 'probability' of the mass voter fraud you are so afraid of...?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 555
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/10/2013 7:42:53 PM

What is the 'probability' of the mass voter fraud you are so afraid of...?
I would say it is quite high... it doesn't actually have to happen either. Just the belief on either side that it does. Civil unrest is likely if it is believed the elections to have been fraudulent

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/shutting-the-gates-over-fears-of-election-unrest/

Shutting the Gates Over Fears of Election Unrest


You can think they are stupid fear mongers all you want but that doesn't make it less probable.

Found this from 2000. Rember that whole contested election nightmare...
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tprqjecon/v_3a115_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a499-531.htm

Abstract: We study elections in which one party (the strong party) controls a source of political unrest; e.g., this party could instigate riots if it lost the election. We show that the strong party is more likely to win the election when there is less information about its ability to cause unrest. This is because when the weak party is better informed, it can more reliably prevent political unrest by implementing a "centrist" policy. When there is uncertainty over the credibility of the threat, "posturing" by the strong party leads to platform divergence.


This doesn't favor one party over the other. It's about the claims of the weaker party. In this last election it was Republicans. During Bush Gore it was Democrats. It's a valid concern.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 556
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/10/2013 7:54:37 PM

All those right wing evangelical religious red states want to live their lives how they choose


In their own homes they can...but, when it comes to the public domain the constitution is the law of the land...and twist...bend...interpret...as they may...the constitution is the constitution....and states do not get to change that...so, personhood...you've no problem with that???


And how they choose is how they choose. They vote for people to project their views into the federal arena.


Ya mean just like we did when we re-elected President Obama??? and you don't like it do ya...so, all the whinning and crying about totalitarianism is just that ...whinning and crying....becuse, if we go by your logic...then we the majority...with our Presdident...should just get our way...and F U...because in essence...you just said this is what states have the right to do....and you're crying because we trumped you with One President.



You have to know what a totalitarian government is before you call those right wing nuts that. The biggest thing they advocated was the removal of church and state impediment as currently defined,


Currently defined...wtf...you wingnuts quote the constitution chapter and verse...did ya just happen to think there's a current version of the constitution???a revised edition???convinient clip note version????

Of course when the constitution was written there were only muskets...no assault type rifle's...they couldn't envision 20 kids being murdered....if this was was they thought we'd come to as a nation...they would never have presented the second amendment let-alone ratify it....but, you wingnuts stick to "right to bear arms" as meaning any arms...and now you want to talk about CURRENTLY DEFINED...which side of ylour mouth did this one come out of???


You then jump into the 'spreading of their borders" which is a total fabrication


Yea,...the spreading of their borders refers to spreading their version of religion to all of the rest of us in other states...perhaps you ahven't seen all the craype about how this nation was founded as a christian nation...yada yada yada...


You just want someone to force them into submission on everything you want.


WTF...did you deduce this thru magical thinking???because this is nothing I've ever said.


Then you bounce into the sececeion meme. Isn't that over yet?


The secession thing was November...it's now January...3 months...and the civil war post were in the last 3 days...these traitors that you've aligned yourself with are still here thinking the same things...it ain't over for them and you know it.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 557
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/10/2013 8:32:57 PM
n their own homes they can...but, when it comes to the public domain the constitution is the law of the land...and twist...bend...interpret...as they may...the constitution is the constitution....and states do not get to change that...so, personhood...you've no problem with that???
Several things in this sentence. You getting frustrated?

In their own homes they can. Yes. But you can't relegate everything private you don't like to behind closed doors. That is not freedom that is exile.

In the public domain the Constitution is law. And it protects very clearly the right of states to self determine laws. You can't bend and twist and interpret that your way. It is the law. States can change that. That is the amendment process. Learn how to use it if you think you are so right. It requires voting for people that will support the position at the federal level.

Personhood. I suspect you are referring to corporations as people Yes I support that. One of the problems it solved was legal accountability of corporations. Prior to person-hood there was no redress for actions done by a corporation especially in criminal matters and deaths. In order to sue for accountability it requires a person. Why do you think heads of corporations can now serve jail time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizen


It does mean that it requires evidence to convict a corporation just as much as it is required for a natural person. It isn't the big bad wolf you have been lead to believe.



Ya mean just like we did when we re-elected President Obama??? and you don't like it do ya...so, all the whinning and crying about totalitarianism is just that ...whinning and crying....becuse, if we go by your logic...then we the majority...with our Presdident...should just get our way...and F U...because in essence...you just said this is what states have the right to do....and you're crying because we trumped you with One President.

I don't have to like the president winning. That isn't the point of the discussion. It is about trusting the vote that elected him. If he won then my feelings are not relevant now are they. However, if it was by fraud then what I think suddenly matters. That is what I'm saying that there is a legitimate use for VoterID. However, that is not the justifications given for it as explained before There is no voice.


Yea,...the spreading of their borders refers to spreading their version of religion to all of the rest of us in other states...perhaps you ahven't seen all the craype about how this nation was founded as a christian nation...yada yada yada...

Yes. It is the goal of all world idologies to spread. Yours is collectivism with a nice bent towards economic equality and subjugation of the achievers for the benefit of all. The other is Religious rule. You have to pick one. If you actually try to understand it you should see that their is no option. Someone is going to eventually win. The one that is truly american is self-determination and the ability to follow whichever god you want as long as it didn't infringe on those around you to detriment.


WTF...did you deduce this thru magical thinking???because this is nothing I've ever said.
Just about every position you advocate for involves the forcing of one group over another. It is either through economic redistribution through taxes or through restriction of rights of ownership and property through the restriction of rights of speech of individuals and corporations. It isn't magical thinking it is the nature of your ideology. It is so much a part of it that you see it as normal and good. The funny part about it is that you live your life in violation of your own rules as directly indicated by your wealth status and your pride in your wealth status. That is common for liberals. It's a basic built in hypocrisy that you can see every day by rich and famous actors who through little actual achievement have the vast majority of wealth given to them over their ability to entertain.
It isn't their ability to attain the wealth that I have a problem with but their declaration that such wealth shouldn't be achieved by others while they fly off on their private jets. Can you even acknowledge that?


The secession thing was November...it's now January...3 months...and the civil war post were in the last 3 days...these traitors that you've aligned yourself with are still here thinking the same things...it ain't over for them and you know it.

Do you really expect me to take a post as a declaration of civil war? Let's look at some real magical thinking.

Show me the error of my position that increasing the reliability and verification ability of the whole voting process would not increase social trust in the system. If you do present an argument then please also present your intention and method of increasing social stability and trust in the voter system.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 558
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 6:06:10 AM

Show me the error of my position that increasing the reliability and verification ability of the whole voting process would not increase social trust in the system...

Easy, the idea is based on a false premiss thus any actions taken would be seen in the long run as an attempt to control the electric by the government and thus create less trust in the voting system.

As any time someone in authority tells you that something needs to be done, yet it has been proven that it is not needed to be done, you will have less trust in the government.

As implementing such actions to stop something that accounts for less than a fraction of a % would be seen as a waste of tax payers dollars.

Several studies showing such have already been posted so no need to re-post the same links again.






...If you do present an argument then please also present your intention and method of increasing social stability and trust in the voter system.

Already did, as I showed that the hyperbole around voter ID is just a product of a Conservative Think Tank, who's own study showed that Voter ID is a non-issue.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 559
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 8:35:26 AM
#657

when it comes to the public domain the constitution is the law of the land...and twist...bend...interpret...as they may...the constitution is the constitution....and states do not get to change that


I wish you would stay on topic. But since you have chosen to bring up a number of other issues besides voter ID, I'll follow you far enough to respond to them.

You've made clear, many times, just how much you care about the Constitution. Your concern for the Tenth Amendment is especially touching--I'm sure your concern for the Second is just as strong. And thank you for your astutely reasoned, deeply informed analysis of constitutional law.

But if what you say is true, how can states get away with denying defendants held for serious crimes their Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment? And how can they have laws that impose excessive fines, even though the Eighth Amendment prohibits it? Twist . . . bend . . . interpret . . . as dimocraps may, the Constitution is the Constitution . . . and much of it does not apply to the states. See Amendments IX and X.


so, personhood...you've no problem with that???


I certainly do not. I'm a firm believer in personhood, for all persons--including corporate persons. And here's a tip for any leftist meatheads who may read this. Whatever propaganda to the contrary your handlers at Media Matters, the Daily Kos, MSNBC, etc. may have fed you, corporate personhood did not begin with the Citizens United decision a few years ago. It was already a well-established legal principle even in the 1800's.


did ya just happen to think there's a current version of the constitution???a revised edition???


You pretend to respect the Constitution as written, but in the very next sentence you make clear you don't respect it, or the rule of law, at all. Having courts blithely revise the Constitution to meet changing times without bothering with the long, difficult amendment process--which was designed to do precisely that--is exactly what dimocraps are constantly yammering for. What they really want--lawless authoritarians that they are--is to impose their personal whims on everyone else, and the Constitution be damned. Lately, you can hear them everywhere droning on about how the Second Amendment's not relevant, because in 1791 we had single-shot muskets, etc.


you wingnuts stick to "right to bear arms" as meaning any arms


"You wingnuts?" Just who are you talking to? I haven't seen anyone on these forums suggest anything like what you're claiming. Maybe you are imagining things again. I'm sure Heller and McDonald would be tough going for you, but if you'd read even the synopsis of either one you'd know the Court made clear the right to keep and bear arms is not an unlimited one.


about how this nation was founded as a christian nation


I have no idea what school you went to, but I wonder if they taught American History there. I had thought it was common knowledge that this country was founded by English Protestants, and that the colonies had their own official religions--each of them some sect of Christianity. And from the beginning of the United States all the way till 1947, any state was free, if it had wanted, to establish its own official religion. Just imagine--it's a wonder the country survived! That freedom was ended by Everson, a second-rate Supreme Court decision authored by Hugo Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klan official (and FDR appointee) who despised the Catholic Church.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 560
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 8:59:43 AM

Easy, the idea is based on a false premiss thus any actions taken would be seen in the long run as an attempt to control the electric by the government and thus create less trust in the voting system.

As any time someone in authority tells you that something needs to be done, yet it has been proven that it is not needed to be done, you will have less trust in the government.


Your entire premise is wrong. You claim that the idea of civil unrest post election is a false premise. That is easily proven wrong and is often threatened as was threatened or was believed to be a concern in the last election.

Your second premise is just mind boggling. It virtually makes no sense at all. So, everything that government says is necessary is by default proven needed in your world? Whatever, your failure to state your argument doesn't disqualify your idea I will just have to make up what I think you meant.

I think you are saying that a law that must be proven to be unnecessary creates distrust in government. This is basically nonsense. Every law has a period of discovery and determination of risk assessment. Only a very few laws are absolutely necessary. The majority are created because of a conflict that comes up between two parties and requires an authority to resolve the conflict. It is also just plain absurd to make the claim that all laws be justified as being needed through all past history as well as future. The contested election in 2000 was enough to justify changes. The recent indictments for various forms of fraud voting which included double voting and casting votes in others names supports it. The UN thought it was necessary to monitor the election. At what point isn't it justified to improve vote integrity.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 561
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 9:07:03 AM
"And here's a tip for any leftist meatheads"

Gee, I thought we were talking about meatloaf...not meathead?

"I'm a firm believer in personhood"

"Corporate persons"? Really? Can you put a corporate person in jail? How do you do that? When a corporation is complicit in the death of a person, do they get the chair?

This is all more clap trap from the right, allowing the pirates who run some rogue corporations, to avoid prosecution. It is the same with elections, corporations can't vote..but they can influence and spend money to get candidates sympathetic to their ideas and causes elected.

Frankly it's just another cheap lawyer trick!

Well better settle in, I guess he will be calling mom for more meatloaf as we debate these issues!
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 562
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 10:55:56 AM
The meatloaf must have been excellent last night.

Anyway, the personhood I was speaking about wasn't corporate personhood it was personhood from the time of conception./..yanno...the shyte some of the red states are attempting to pass to circumvent Roe v Wade...which, as I understand would be killing a person...murder charges...for an abortion during the first 26 weeks....wonder what the repuglicant red states will have in their bag of tricks for 2014???

The other personhood is just the corporate 5 stretching their will over the electorate...dragging in big bubbka's for the big red machine...no small donor's for the repuglicant's...those from the red states can't afford to part with any piece of their welfare checks or foodstamps to donate to the candidate of their chioice....but, they want voter ID's o keep all those minorities (who they thinkl don't really belong here) from voting.

These ppl from the red states are the traitorous bystards who wish to secede from the union and are willing to take up arms and declare a civil war over voter ID's and guns...yep...the repuglicants have turned into the party of the mis-fits.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 563
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 11:28:14 AM

These ppl from the red states are the traitorous bystards who wish to secede from the union and are willing to take up arms and declare a civil war over voter ID's and guns...yep...the repuglicants have turned into the party of the mis-fits.


Have you noticed how much you cry for actual war over everyone else? You want it?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 564
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 11:30:35 AM


These ppl from the red states are the traitorous bystards who wish to secede from the union and are willing to take up arms and declare a civil war over voter ID's and guns...yep...the repuglicants have turned into the party of the mis-fits.



Have you noticed how much you cry for actual war over everyone else? You want it?


ROFLMAO....you just can't stand being in the party of the traitorous mis-fits.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 565
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 12:26:01 PM

ROFLMAO....you just can't stand being in the party of the traitorous mis-fits.


Right... I guess thought of people dying is funny to you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitator

a : one who stirs up public feeling on controversial issues



Can you at least give a coherent rebuttal to the idea that improving the integrity of the voting system is good for social trust in government.

A large segment of the population is losing trust in the voting system. This occurs on both sides. If something isn't done to ease the tension then this could lead to instances of civil unrest and eventually riots with risk of property damage and loss of life.

You don't like voter id... fine. counter it with something coherent that makes an attempt to reach the same outcome. Trust in the system.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 566
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 1:03:20 PM
#662


Gee, I thought we were talking about meatloaf...not meathead?


I don't care what you thought. If I want to talk about leftist meatheads, I will--if, that is, you'll excuse the redundancy.



This is all more clap trap from the right . . . Frankly it's just another cheap lawyer trick!


The claptrap is yours. You don't know the first thing about the legal doctrine of corporate personhood, its history, or the reasoning behind it. But as usual, you don't let that stop you from offering your completely uninformed opinion about the subject.



I guess he will be calling mom


My mother is no longer living. And no one who was any kind of a man would talk about another poster's mother here.

#663


which, as I understand would be killing a person...murder charges...for an abortion during the first 26 weeks


You don't understand that any better than you do the other subjects you were prattling about. The Supreme Court has not placed the time when a fetus becomes viable at 26 weeks. It has carefully avoided specifying any time, although it has suggested that it might be quite a bit earlier than that. Before viability, states can restrict abortions as long as the restriction does not place an "undue burden" on the mother. After viability, states can go much further. They are then free to ban abortions outright to protect the life of the fetus. So the notion that a state law making it murder to abort a fetus beforeviability would pass constitutional muster doesn't even pass the laugh test.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 567
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 1:19:36 PM
"if, that is, you'll excuse the redundancy"

Well, I won't excuse it meatloaf man! I realize you don't care what I think, or anyone else for that matter...the basic problem is we if, that is, you'll excuse the redundancy don't care what you think either! You don't get it, you drag out the constitution and turn it on it's ear, to make your points...

"You don't know the first thing about the legal doctrine of corporate personhood"

See there ya go, because something is legal, doesn't make it moral...isn't that what you guys on the right say all the time? Circumventing someone elses rights, because it's done in the name of a corporation, is not ethical...gesh WTH am I doing trying to discuss ethics with someone in the "legal" profession!

"My mother is no longer living"

I'm sorry to hear that. So who is it upstairs making you meatloaf all the time, while you type madly in the basement about "dimocraps" and "jihadist sympathizers"??

"who was any kind of man"

I've wondered the same about you many times...what kind of man refers to people he doesn't know as "dimocraps", "brownshirts", "Jihadist sympathizers", "socialists", and the litany of names you use to discribe anyone who doesn't think like you do? A troubled one I think, but don't let that stop you from chowing down on the meatloaf!
 ChowFun
Joined: 11/19/2012
Msg: 568
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 1:59:58 PM
we...{snip}..... don't care what you think either!

What's this we shit?
"We" don't see anyone countering with constitution cites

only

meatloaf man?

Oh you and Rickles are the masters.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 569
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/11/2013 11:48:45 PM
Personally, I'm happy the voter ID laws failed to circumvent the will of the majority. The people's voice was heard in an election designed by the Constitution. All those who aren't happy with the outcome can take it up with the process our fore fathers set in place.


Uh, you may want to look up voting rights going back before 1965. At least then many you would have some basic, even elementary, understanding of what our 'fore fathers' set in place. That is just the equality parts... go back even further. May as well give you the answer. It is pretty funny how lunatic leftists think they can just use the words "fore fathers' and think that they have a clue what it means or why it was that way and basically just make shit up as if all of history just proves them right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote.



Those suggesting we need assault rifles to defend themselves against the government are kidding themselves.

Not entirely on topic for voting rights. Hint... We don't vote on Federal Laws. If you want to hit up your local representation and go for some state level bans... Go ahead... Absolultely nothing says you have to make a 'federal' case out of it and in doing so you violate a protection against the federal government.


There are much better arguments for the Second Am. than, "We need our guns in case the government goes totalitarian on us.."

There has never been a better justification in history then this. It is no small matter. Freedom is the weakest state of mankind and of history and especially the freedom to challenge the government by force. Do you even have a clue what this means?


Your arsenal is laughable against the most powerful nation known to mankind.

Idiocy again. If it were that easy then we would have owned the middle east already... and Vietnam for that matter. Do you even stop for a second to consider some of your thoughts? I know it will hurt your brain and you can't see more then your own point of view but look up Waco. A small compound vs the Federal Govt. It didn't end well for Branch Davidians but the lesson isn't about them or any reasons why the specific event occurred. it was the force of the federal government vs a small armed compound. 50 days and finally had to burn them out. Why? It wasn't because they had steak knives.

So please, make an effort to at least spend 30 seconds on google when you think you have made a point. It saves all of us a whole lot of wasted energy just to make sure that someone doesn't read what you thought was clever and think there is something valid in it.

Since you are so incredibly wrong about every point you made... Is there a possibility you may consider your position on this issue wrong as well?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 570
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/12/2013 2:22:38 AM

The majority of what you write is insulting. Any fool can do that. ;)


You just did.



The average American has, at best, what the average Iraqi had before America annihilated them.

Wake up, we have drones and Apaches and carpet bombs and smart bombs and fighter jets and submarines and.... what do you think your laughable assault rifles are going to do against this government? Hola loco??


And your point is what? It's better to be defenseless and have no fighting chance? What does this have to do with voterID?

Do you need assistance with understanding context?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 571
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/12/2013 7:03:07 AM

a : one who stirs up public feeling on controversial issues


So, when after you post this you keep up with this, then, you're continuing to stir up controversial issues...which makes you an agitator...even worse...one who apparently doesn't even know it:




If something isn't done to ease the tension then this could lead to instances of civil unrest and eventually riots with risk of property damage and loss of life.

There has never been a better justification in history then this. It is no small matter. Freedom is the weakest state of mankind and of history and especially the freedom to challenge the government by force. Do you even have a clue what this means?
It's better to be defenseless and have no fighting chance?


Seems like you're advocating armed insurrection all over something as foolish as voter ID, which is just more fear-mongering by the GOP, and gun control....apparently the loss of life, twenty 6 and 7 year olds, doesn't bother you so long as wingnuts get to keep their assault type rifles and mega ammo clips...the word hypocrit comes to mind.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 572
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/12/2013 7:26:36 AM

Seems like you're advocating armed insurrection all over something as foolish as voter ID


Now that you mentioned it.

Can you at least give a coherent rebuttal to the idea that improving the integrity of the voting system is good for social trust in government.

A large segment of the population is losing trust in the voting system. This occurs on both sides. If something isn't done to ease the tension then this could lead to instances of civil unrest and eventually riots with risk of property damage and loss of life.

You don't like voter id... fine. counter it with something coherent that makes an attempt to reach the same outcome. Trust in the system.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 573
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/12/2013 10:09:24 AM
"to the idea that improving the integrity of the voting system is good for social trust in government"

Ahhhh, but there's the rub...what "integrity" is improved when you eliminate the voting rights for a whole swath of folks who have voted for YEARS...and now find they cannot, because of restrictive hours, fewer polling places and an ID system that is expensive and cumbersome to get?

Most to all of us avoid the DMV like the plague...not the best use of our time to spend 4+hours on line to get a simple ID. It maybe convienent for the state of Pennsylvania, but the fact is, it's not really user friendly for many of us.

If you want to change the laws, then make it easier to obtain as well. One state had 4 locations scattered across the state where you could get one. How is driving an hour and a half to find a place(which has hours of 9 to 5) convienent? For the working poor, it would generally mean, a day off from work, to drive there(an hour and a half), wait for whatever it takes, then drive an hour and a half back home. That doesn't even address the cost(before you go there, cost would also have to include gasoline and wear and tear on the car).

In most of the cases you cited, it wasn't in-person voter fraud, but tampering by election officials. Even the republican group that threw away registrations for democrats, has to be considered tampering.

"A large segment of the population is losing trust in the voting system"

No their not! Their losing faith in the country because their ideas of whats right or fair is so lopsided, that normal people cannot support their candidates.

After a firm rejection of stands by Mourdoch, Akin on abortion and others. What's the first thing done by republicans when the House begins business? 2 republican women introduce bills restricting abortions and contraception! Then that cretan, from Georgia gets up and spouts off, saying the same thing Akin said. That a woman's body can reject pregnancy if it occurs from rape...and HE is a an OBGYN doctor!!!

Same thing with voter rights and ID's...do you see them rushing to make it easier to get one? NO, they are keeping mum about it. So then when 36 months pass, they will call for the instatement of the laws, when it's down to the wire and is presidential election time.

THIS is why there is such mistrust in the system.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 574
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/12/2013 11:34:33 AM
Fraud accounts for .00004 of the vote. That's not a large portion of the vote.
....
There were like 86 cases in 2008.

Now, now, skoochie... You're talking reality and real-world impacts here... That's not what the "voter ID" crowd are on about, they can't be bothered with such "nonsense" and are convinced that it is a lie anyway (they can't prove it but they BELIEVE it, which is all that matters for them)...

Those people who think that is a reason to distrust the system are just paranoid because their candidate didn't win.

Now this is where the reality lies for the serious "voter ID" advocates... They are absolutely convinced, even though they can't prove it, that tens-to-hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of illegal immigrants and non-eligible "green card" holders are being rounded-up and registered by Democrats in order to throw the elections...

They firmly believe this because they are absolutely convinced that THEY truly represent the actual, physical majority of American citizens... In their minds it is impossible for the Democrats to win without massive voter fraud and thus, a win by Democrats is "prima facie" evidence of massive voter fraud...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 575
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/12/2013 12:22:57 PM
Haha...

You said

"A large segment of the population is losing trust in the voting system"

No their not! Their losing faith in the country because their ideas of whats right or fair is so lopsided, that normal people cannot support their candidates.


Then you said

THIS is why there is such mistrust in the system.


Everything in between those two quotes isn't relevant. So, you do agree their is a los of trust in the voting system. You described your view that it isn't accessible and that republicans try to put restrictions in place that make it hard for some very small class of the population which for some unknown reason can't utilize existing services to accomplish this task which occurs several times a year and one big one every four years.

I'm not all about equality. Your reference to the cases of absentee voter fraud. That was a direct attempt at equality in voting and making it easier for people that can not easily participate. There are less restrictions already in place and it has not made the system less prone to fraud. It increased it.

It is a valid argument that places without a DMV close by should not demand that that is the only method of registration. That is a state by state and county by country issue. There is no reasoning in this against the requirement of photo ID. Only the accessibility of the photoID. Poll tax would be a better argument if you really wanted to make one. However, current voting legislation passed many years ago by your buddy and pal Bill Clinton actually makes that idea basically moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (42 U.S.C. ยง 1973gg), also known as The Motor Voter Act, was signed into effect by United States President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993. However, compliance did not become mandatory until 1995. The legislation required state governments to allow for registration when a qualifying voter applied for or renewed their driver's license or applied for social services.


So, it was established long before that the DMV was the goto place.


History of the act

This voter registration movement was spearheaded by the husband and wife team of Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in the early 1980s in response to the Reagan administration. Both of them college professors and liberal activists, it was Piven's and Cloward's belief that through government implementation of more active registration proposals, it would increase voter turnout rates which had been on a steady decline since the monumental election of 1896.


So, it seems that someone really liked 1896. What happened then?
http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/presidential-election/historical-election/1896.html


The presidential election of 1896 was a dramatic election, in which Republican candidate William McKinley defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan to become the twenty-fifth President of the United States. The campaigns focused on the economy and especially the divisive issue of the gold standard and free silver. The election ushered in what historians call the Progressive Era, or the Fourth Party System, the political realignment that occurred during the 1896 election.


So, here we go round and round again... Democrats under the progressive flag want to giveaway free money for votes. It apparently really got people up and into the booths. Free shit does that... However, there was a backlash to this election...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896

The Democratic Party's repudiation of the Bourbon Democrats (their pro-business wing, represented by incumbent President Grover Cleveland), set the stage for 36 years of Republican control of the White House, interrupted only by the two terms of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.


The one thing that hasn't changed in over 100 years. Democrat party is all about revolution, upheaval, struggle and change.

So, no. I do not agree that expanding voter turnout to the absolute maximum possible in any way leads to a more stable system. We have expanded it enough and to the breaking point of integrity. The only real means of increasing the voter turnout beyond where we are at today through anything other then massive conflict between parties is to make voting mandatory with a fine if the responsibility is not done. Australia already has that law although it isn't enforced.

So, I really do not have a problem with VoterID and am not tied to Drivers license either. Some form of ID that is not easily faked that verifies residency. This then creates a system that can be used to more accurately review vote outcomes for deeper frauds such as vote counting. With electronic voting on the rise this is even more important. Getting a statistically significant vote count result for the verified voter population different then expected could raise awareness of issues.

So, other then creating drama and intrigue... how about proposing something that contributes to peace and stability. Instead of promising treats and gifts for votes how about building a strong and vibrant nation that rewards achievement instead of punishing for it. Encourage those that think they can't to actually try rather then just promise them silver.

100 years now and nothing much has really changed as far as the arguments. Leftists just change their names, change their party, hijack language, rewrite history, and it is all about democracy because everyone knows that through democracy that is the fastest way to collapse a society and bring about the great socialistic revolution. Same old story.

What do you want to see come out of high turnout elections? It defiantly isn't thoughtful wisdom. There is a reason we are not a full democracy. I happen to agree with it.

What would you do to increase trust and faith in the system? Just having more people vote doesn't accomplish that.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]