Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 351
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    I am not arguing against citizenship, criminal or age restriction prohibitions in regards to voting. Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth. I am saying there are clear actions here that by definition wont affect the minority vote but in practicality, they absolutely will. So yeah no discrimination written in law but in practice, there is. This bill isn't passed if Georgia stays red.

    And there are plenty of people who can do that without a government issued ID. I can point to 200,000 that article referred to that have more obstacles to vote than they did a year ago and for no good reason other than people bought into the big lie ******** and their republican president/senators lost legitimate elections.

    Just because something is legal doesn't make it a moral action btw.
    I never put words in your mouth. Simply providing examples of common voter suppression tactics that are perfectly acceptable to the vast majority. Thatís the basis. They exist to create a fair and safe election for eligible voters.

    Most security measures are not put in place because the action is currently happening. They are put in place to prevent them from happening and create a level of security within the mind of those theyíre aimed to protect. We put locks on doors - not because someone is currently breaking in or has even attempted to in the past. We do it to prevent, to the best of our ability, a future attempt (that may or may not ever happen).

    You have not presented a single argument as to why a voter ID is bad idea to prevent ineligible voters from voting. And Iím guessing itís because itís a real sensible, practical and easy measure to take. Even if itís not 100% effective, it surely would be more effective than not having it should someone try to vote illegally. And if that calms the minds of a large percentage of the voting base - why not do it? (Clearly there is a large percentage of the voting base that has concerns - whether their fears are valid or not - this is an easy measure to calm their fears).

    So why is it impossible to do both? Create a voter ID requirement while simultaneously breaking down the barriers that you have concerns about. I noted one - which was older citizens who were born before US birth certificates became common practice. (Pre WW2) - well for 1. Itís not like only black people were born before WW2 and have this issue. 2. This seems to be a simple issue to clear up. The federal government should have no issue creating a program that can grant birth certificates for any citizen born pre WW2.

    Iím not denying there are voting obstacles. There are. But that shouldnít disqualify governments for attempting to prevent possible security risks. That is their job after all. I see nothing in this bill thatís unconstitutional. And the arguments about unfair barriers that suppress voting are either ridiculous (water should be provided - uh what?) or easily fixed with additional measures (US birth certificates to obtain IDís)
    Last edited by Oakmont_4; 04-07-2021 at 05:38 PM.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,993
    Voter ID requirements are nothing but government bureaucracy for the sake of government bureaucracy.

    Oh and the racism.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    <><><><><><><>
    <><><><>

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    Voter ID requirements are nothing but government bureaucracy for the sake of government bureaucracy.

    Oh and the racism.
    Intelligent and substantive statement... youíve certainly added a lot to the conversation.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    29,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Intelligent and substantive statement... youíve certainly added a lot to the conversation.
    Theres nothing else to add. He's correct.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Intelligent and substantive statement... youíve certainly added a lot to the conversation.
    Its not a conversation lol. Anyone with a brain knows how this works. You are simply performing theater

    Investing in preventing Martians from voting is as relevant as investing in burdensome voting regulations to prevent "fraud"
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    <><><><><><><>
    <><><><>

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Theres nothing else to add. He's correct.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    Registering to vote requirements are nothing but government bureaucracy just for the sake of government bureaucracy.

    Oh and the racism

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    Its not a conversation lol. Anyone with a brain knows how this works. You are simply performing theater

    Investing in preventing Martians from voting is as relevant as investing in burdensome voting regulations to prevent "fraud"
    Making statements with no reasoning is not a conversation. You are correct. Youíll also never prove any sort of point. If the only reasoning you have is ďeveryone knows thisĒ - you have no argument. You have no defense of your statement. Youíre just a close minded individual incapable of finding common ground - which is the basis of a democracy

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Making statements with no reasoning is not a conversation. You are correct. Youíll also never prove any sort of point. If the only reasoning you have is ďeveryone knows thisĒ - you have no argument. You have no defense of your statement. Youíre just a close minded individual incapable of finding common ground - which is the basis of a democracy
    How long is the show in town? Honestly, the story is played out. Has been since Jim Crow. Performance is getting stale.

    Not to mention, common ground between reality and fiction is a net negative for society
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    <><><><><><><>
    <><><><>

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,030
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    Voter ID requirements are nothing but government bureaucracy for the sake of government bureaucracy.

    Oh and the racism.
    Did I miss something? How is it racist to require an ID to vote?

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    40,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    I never put words in your mouth. Simply providing examples of common voter suppression tactics that are perfectly acceptable to the vast majority. Thatís the basis. They exist to create a fair and safe election for eligible voters.

    Most security measures are not put in place because the action is currently happening. They are put in place to prevent them from happening and create a level of security within the mind of those theyíre aimed to protect. We put locks on doors - not because someone is currently breaking in or has even attempted to in the past. We do it to prevent, to the best of our ability, a future attempt (that may or may not ever happen).

    You have not presented a single argument as to why a voter ID is bad idea to prevent ineligible voters from voting. And Iím guessing itís because itís a real sensible, practical and easy measure to take. Even if itís not 100% effective, it surely would be more effective than not having it should someone try to vote illegally. And if that calms the minds of a large percentage of the voting base - why not do it? (Clearly there is a large percentage of the voting base that has concerns - whether their fears are valid or not - this is an easy measure to calm their fears).

    So why is it impossible to do both? Create a voter ID requirement while simultaneously breaking down the barriers that you have concerns about. I noted one - which was older citizens who were born before US birth certificates became common practice. (Pre WW2) - well for 1. Itís not like only black people were born before WW2 and have this issue. 2. This seems to be a simple issue to clear up. The federal government should have no issue creating a program that can grant birth certificates for any citizen born pre WW2.

    Iím not denying there are voting obstacles. There are. But that shouldnít disqualify governments for attempting to prevent possible security risks. That is their job after all. I see nothing in this bill thatís unconstitutional. And the arguments about unfair barriers that suppress voting are either ridiculous (water should be provided - uh what?) or easily fixed with additional measures (US birth certificates to obtain IDís)
    Thats great and all but you need a precedent to justify changing a law that didn't need changing. At the very least, there needs to be proof that illegal actions were occurring. Political pressure from the Trump campaign and Republicans worrying about losing Congressional seats is not good reasoning. Can you give me one instance of voter fraud in Georgia? Can you show me all the instances of illegal voting? Does this happen if Perdue, Loeffler, and Trump win Georgia?

    I know you will try to find ways to justify its implementation but again, legality and constitutionality doesnt equal whats moral and whats right. They simply come down to interpretation, loopholes, and whoever is in power manipulating said ambiguities.

    Brett is a lost cause. He is just super disappointed his favorite president lost. You could give a hundred examples of voter suppression in the South and the precedent that has been set for over a century and it wouldn't matter.

    You and I both know what this law is directed at. Its a formality that its not verbatim prejudice.
    Last edited by metswon69; 04-07-2021 at 08:19 PM.

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Did I miss something? How is it racist to require an ID to vote?
    It's not, in any way. It is nothing more than a tactic vs. having actual debate about factual information. You can simply shut down the dialogue by screaming "racist" or any other socially unacceptable moniker. Shout "racist" and watch everyone line up behind you for fear of being accused of somehow being on the wrong side of righteousness.

    Most people outgrow that junk, as life dictates they provide substantive content to their dialogue to either grow as individuals, or otherwise provide meaningful contributions to society. It is considerably more productive to teach people to work hard to be competent, and knowledgeable, and self sufficient, than to look for ways to be a victim.

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Thats great and all but you need a precedent to justify changing a law that didn't need changing. At the very least, there needs to be proof that illegal actions were occurring. Political pressure from the Trump campaign and Republicans worrying about losing Congressional seats is not good reasoning. Can you give me one instance of voter fraud in Georgia? Can you show me all the instances of illegal voting? Does this happen if Perdue, Loeffler, and Trump win Georgia?

    I know you will try to find ways to justify its implementation but again, legality and constitutionality doesnt equal whats moral and whats right. They simply come down to interpretation, loopholes, and whoever is in power manipulating said ambiguities.

    Brett is a lost cause. He is just super disappointed his favorite president lost. You could give a hundred examples of voter suppression in the South and the precedent that has been set for over a century and it wouldn't matter.

    You and I both know what this law is directed at. Its a formality that its not verbatim prejudice.
    Your argument is all over the map. Morality is subjective. The law is not meant to be moral, nor is it meant to solve all of societies moral issues (theyíre aplenty). The law is meant to create an equal playing field to all. To set the rules of the game as you will. Thatís not to say the law canít be based on morals. But morals arenít the law - because theyíre subjective. Even if a vast majority of people believe itís moral to be kind - not all people believe that. And you know what, thatís ok, even if I donít share that particular view point. We canít force people to be nice.

    I would argue itís immoral to ignore a very large percentage of the countries concerns on voting integrity and security. Again, whether those concerns are valid or not is not for me or you to decide. Whether we agree with them or not - they exist and are therefore important to listen to and work towards finding common ground. Calling that many people ďstupid or uneducatedĒ because you donít share their concerns doesnít solve the issue or make it go away. Itís only going to make them fight harder.

    I donít share your belief in what the law is directed at. I do not see this law being directed at anyone other than ineligible voters. And Iíve already stated if the law creates certain barriers or obstacles that unfairly create impossibilities to eligible voters - we should work to solve those issues as well. But in no way does that discredit the current bill. You have yet to provide any obstacle you speak of and why under the current legislation it canít be solved simultaneously with additional legislation or objectives.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    40,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Your argument is all over the map. Morality is subjective. The law is not meant to be moral, nor is it meant to solve all of societies moral issues (theyíre aplenty). The law is meant to create an equal playing field to all. To set the rules of the game as you will. Thatís not to say the law canít be based on morals. But morals arenít the law - because theyíre subjective. Even if a vast majority of people believe itís moral to be kind - not all people believe that. And you know what, thatís ok, even if I donít share that particular view point. We canít force people to be nice.

    I would argue itís immoral to ignore a very large percentage of the countries concerns on voting integrity and security. Again, whether those concerns are valid or not is not for me or you to decide. Whether we agree with them or not - they exist and are therefore important to listen to and work towards finding common ground. Calling that many people ďstupid or uneducatedĒ because you donít share their concerns doesnít solve the issue or make it go away. Itís only going to make them fight harder.

    I donít share your belief in what the law is directed at. I do not see this law being directed at anyone other than ineligible voters. And Iíve already stated if the law creates certain barriers or obstacles that unfairly create impossibilities to eligible voters - we should work to solve those issues as well. But in no way does that discredit the current bill. You have yet to provide any obstacle you speak of and why under the current legislation it canít be solved simultaneously with additional legislation or objectives.
    Just about everything is subjective. The idea of laws to protect against what we perceive to be wrong behavior. This is an overreaction to nothing of any consequence based on partisan ideology that one party is getting screwed. It's not ironic that you couldn't provide any of those things I asked for in justification btw.

    I am surprised you dont see the flaws in your logic. You are talking about no obstacles then referring to additional legislation to address some of those same obstacles. You do realize that, right? These things are not linear either. There are no guarantees that legislation is passed because the general principle here is limit voting. It may not be expressively said as such but I and others know (guess you don't see it) who this impacts directly and indirectly.

    You arent convincing anyone btw. Much of this comes from the fact that poll after poll suggests that half or more Republicans think voter fraud is rampant and that it cost Trump the election.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,880
    I donít have a dog in the fight I donít care about this stuff but I did find this picture funny


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Just about everything is subjective. The idea of laws to protect against what we perceive to be wrong behavior. This is an overreaction to nothing of any consequence based on partisan ideology that one party is getting screwed. It's not ironic that you couldn't provide any of those things I asked for in justification btw.

    I am surprised you dont see the flaws in your logic. You are talking about no obstacles then referring to additional legislation to address some of those same obstacles. You do realize that, right? These things are not linear either. There are no guarantees that legislation is passed because the general principle here is limit voting. It may not be expressively said as such but I and others know (guess you don't see it) who this impacts directly and indirectly.

    You arent convincing anyone btw. Much of this comes from the fact that poll after poll suggests that half or more Republicans think voter fraud is rampant and that it cost Trump the election.
    Laws are not made on what is perceived to be bad behavior. Laws are made based on societal rejection of bad behaviors. The majority of society rejects rape, murder, slavery etc. The majority of society perceives other ill behaviors negatively, but doesnít outright reject them. Thereís a difference.

    I donít need to provide examples of others justifications for their fears. I never said I agreed with them. Iím merely stating those fears exist so they should be acknowledged. Just as the black communities fears of police need to be acknowledged and heard. In both cases the worst thing half of society can do is try to illegitimize those fears, instead converse about those issues and find common ground.

    I never said there were no obstacles. I acknowledged there probably were. I even noted 2 that were brought up (water, US birth certificates) and offered whether those were relative (1 is, 1 is not) and offered a way around it without condemning a possible solution to the other sides issues.

    In order to clear the obstacles - itís entirely in congresses control as the 15th amendment states.

    Iíll ask again. Do you have any other obstacles to bring to the table? You seem to keep trying to twist or interject my words rather than move this conversation forward. You seem to be very focused on Trump. I havenít mentioned him once. And again - Iíll state - whether their fears are legitimate or not is irrelevant. What matters is they exist and should not be cast aside. Just as Republicans are wrong to cast aside the fears of the black community.

    Both sides can get what they want here. Tighter voting requirements to clearly define eligible voters. Which appeases those with any legitimate or illegitimate election integrity fears. While also knocking down any barriers or obstacles for those who may have trouble for whatever reason meeting those requirements (as long as theyíre an eligible voter). Everyone wins in this scenario.

Page 12 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •