Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorgra]

• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [Yesterday at 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [Yesterday at 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [Yesterday at 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]
• ????????? ??????????? seo... by Victorumj
  [April 25, 2024, 09:59:00 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? tk by Victorcqt
  [April 25, 2024, 06:35:49 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129551
• Total Topics: 7148
• Online Today: 179
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[TheJudge]

lol I had to go to webster for that one. Nice choice!

you really think that asking people who don't have an ID to get one causes a mess? I just don't get that. And ID is something every person should have. It's your legal identification, your "number" amongst 680 billions other indiviudals on this planet. Why would you settle with a library card?

[12AX7]

Because they're told over and over again they can't -among other things- get a photo ID, because they are somehow "less than" everyone who actually has one. After years and years of hearing people tell you that; of course you're gonna believe having to have an photo ID is unfair. That was my point that made Joe's head hurt.

[Joe Sixpack]

My only arguments against a photo ID requirement are cost, and qualification.  The only qualification should be the right to vote.  Not income, not ability to get to the DMV, or time to wait in line there, etc...
Other than that, I'm fine with it.

What made my head hurt was that you said the Democratic party oppresses people.  I have my problems with many of their philosophies in general, but the idea that they are oppressing people by trying to make sure as many of them as possible are able to vote is one of the most inane things I have ever read on this forum, or any other.  And I have a 4 digit Fark number.

[12AX7]

Yeah, I did say "keep them oppressed". I stand corrected; wrong phrasing. What I meant was they have a vested interest in these groups maintaining the idea that they arent as capable. With that mindset in place; its easy to profess to be their savior. I don't believe for a second that Democrats really want all people to be equal. Possibly some; a small few; but as a party, no way. They want certain people to believe they'll always need a leg up. That's what I meant by "keep them oppressed". I concede; wrong phrasing to use.
  And they aren't trying to make sure as many people as possible can vote. They're trying to make sure as many people as possible vote Democrat.

[Joe Sixpack]

I'll agree insofar as you could apply that description to any bloc of political power anywhere in the world, ever.

[12AX7]

Following that line of thought; it could be applied to any group; political or not. Churches sure don't let their members think everythng's fine and they are ok. They need the members to believe they're in trouble; and attending is the only solution. Then, of course, tithes are collected.

[Joe Sixpack]

They're a bloc of political power so I was already including them 

[12AX7]

HA! Agreed.

[reimero]

Does the state have a valid interest in ensuring that only voters may vote?
Does the state have a valid interest in taking measures to ensure that I can't vote in one precinct, then go half a mile away and vote in another?
Does the federal government have an interest in preventing me from casting my vote for President in Indiana and Michigan?

The battles over who may register to vote are largely over (the biggest battles now involve convicted felons, noncitizens and people with residences in multiple states who do not establish a primary residence.)

Part of the nature of voting is establishing an interest in the polity in which one is participating.  I live in South Bend, so why should I have a say in Indianapolis's or Evansville's affairs?  I live in Indiana, so why should I have a say in Michigan's affairs?

Either the state regulates its elections or it does not.  Regulation of elections is a valid means of preventing electoral fraud - and make no mistake, without regulation, there would be fraud (vote early, vote often!)

I also want to make one thing absolutely and undeniably clear: you do not have the Constitutional right to vote.  The Constitution only sets the parameters and prohibits discrimination when public elections are involved - but that is much more a case of, "if the state allows voting, these are the rules."  It's a subtle yet important difference.  When it comes to speech and assembly, you don't have to prove anything: you just have it.  When it comes to voting, states are permitted to regulate.  If the state allows voting, you have Constitutional protections, but that doesn't negate the state's need to have rolls of voters.

Let me be absolutely clear on this: if you start from the point of an assumed right to cast a ballot without having to demonstrate eligibility, you will end up with numerous ineligible ballots cast and a logistical nightmare in determining which ballots are valid and which are not.  Requiring registration and proof of eligibility is not an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, especially since Indiana took very reasonable steps to ensure that even the indigent and impoverished could receive valid voter IDs at no cost.  And the requirements to get that ID are the same requirements needed for things like the federal I-9 employment form - very reasonable.

[xolik]

Story time.

Last year, or it may have been the year before last, I can't quite remember, we were having a local election for a few silly ballot initiatives and of course I took part of the day off to go down to my polling place and cast my votes. When I got there, I went up to the nice old lady behind the counter and stated my name and address.

She couldn't find my name in the book, even though I'm usually at the very top of the first page. I saw my name right off the bat and proceeded to point it out to her, when she snatched the book up close to her body and said "Don't you look at that book and just point to a name and expect me to believe that it's you."

Okayyyy...so I said to her "Fine, here's my ID then" and started to reach for my wallet when she practically starts shouting "NO NO NO Don't show me your ID we can't ask for that don't pull it out STOP!"

Well make up your fucking minds. You either will take my word that I'm who I say I am and risk voter fraud or you check my ID and be certain. But don't pull this bullshit "I'm not going to believe you're who you say you are and I'm not going to look at proof either." 

Having to show photo ID stops wanted criminals being able to vote.

This way the Republicans will never get in again.

It also prevents the goodness knows how many people who are in this country illegally from supporting the Democrats. It's fun to stereotype!

I'd like to bring back the 3/5ths compromise. tyia

[Chris]

NO NO NO Don't pull it out!"

[xolik]

I can't believe I missed a prime opportunity for "Excuse me while I whip this out."

[sociald1077]

I can't believe I missed a prime opportunity for "Excuse me while I whip this out."

AAAHHHHH!!

[reimero]

Back on topic here...

Indiana has the toughest voter ID law in the country.  Doomsayers were predicting that it would keep people away from the polls in droves.

Yesterday, Indiana had it's highest primary turnout ever in history.  Yeah, that law is keeping people away, all right.

[Demosthenes]

For the record, I'm in favour of anything that might keep voter turnout down.

[RelandR]

"Only you have the right to make no difference" - LiL' Bush