Left Loses Big in Citizenship Verification Supreme Court Case

[Dickieboy]

The response you quoted was a response to someone else. Maybe you should link him that article. I'm aware that the cause of poverty for cities or states goes beyond whatever party is in power.

But 'his' post didn't mention the states that yours did...

BTW, I would run too...

 

[specklebang]

Maybe a hybrid. Either show you paid income taxes last year (or proof of being self-0sustaining) or pay the $50 poll tax if you can't show the income/productivity. This mens anybody who votes contributed something.

With this greatly reduced voter base, what kind of outcome do you see? More Liberal, more Conservative, More Libertarian? Do you think these more qualified voters would be more generous or more selfish (with government costs).?

So it seems the SCOTUS ruling wasn't very meaningful. If the States lost no power I mean. Does that explain why the Conservative justices were the bills supporters?

I have absolutely no expectation that it ever will, and I do not lift a finger trying to make it so.



I can't imagine it would be all that many.



What I'd like to see if folks who should have the aptitude to do so taking a felfless interest in their fellow man and the best interests of the nation.

However, if we can label the presently predominating trend as "Selfish Idiots Voting for Shamelessly Pandering Populist Scumbag Snakeoil Salesmen" I expect we'd be back to it pretty quickly, if not immediately.





I think it would be worth a shot.

What we're doing now is just digging the hole deeper, faster.

It might not work but, nothing ventured and all that...



Ostensibly, the folks who would be voting would already be shouldering the lion's share of the tax burden so Uncle Sam would be getting his pound of fles on the front end rather than at the poll.

In other words, the folks who would be voting would already be paying for the election's cost, and everything else this country spends money on, so what difference would it make when they were handed the bill?



More's the pity.

Folks who actually take the time to entertain my inane, bitter ramblings should have more authority.

And perhaps even a vote!

 

[iliveonramen]

But 'his' post didn't mention the states that yours did...

BTW, I would run too...

Of course not...

His post "logical fallacy".

My post "flippant response using his logical fallacy".

 

[Eighty Deuce]

I guess listing California/Illinois/Detroit means stuff to individuals on the right.

All I see is two of some of the richest states in the country and a city that has fallen apart due to globalization and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

But let's go ahead and list the poorest states in the country...Mississippi/West Virginia/Arkansas/Kentucky/Idaho/New Mexico/Alabama/Oklahoma/Lousiana/Utah/South Carolina/ Tennessee/Montana/Indiana/South Dakota/Missouri/North Carolian/Texas....I'm starting to see a trend....

Those two "richest" states have the lowest credit ratings of all 50 states. Due almost overwhelmingly to the unfunded pension obligations. That's the "trend".

Whatever floats your Detroit boat.

:roll:

The assertion stands that liberal policies, whatever their short-term effects, lead to financial morass and ruin.

 

[LowDown]

The idea that this is any kind of victory is naive in the extreme. One can simply download the federal form and send it in. The state will have to accept it. How long do you think it will take someone to print off a few hundred thousand copies?

Not according to the article, anyway:

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in today’s decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.

 

[Fenton]

I offered supposition what's yours?

Inner cities are the first area effected by a Liberal Govt's policies. Whether it be poor schools, Housing and declining neighborhoods people who can move away DO move away.

Out to the suburbs, which are still usually part of the City.

IF those run down areas are rebuilt, with a higher income housing and restrictions on low income housing, they start to renew.

There is a word for it. Gentrification.

Whether poverty follows crime or crime follows poverty it makes little difference.

People don't want it around them.

 

[iliveonramen]

Those two "richest" states have the lowest credit ratings of all 50 states. Due almost overwhelmingly to the unfunded pension obligations. That's the "trend".

Whatever floats your Detroit boat.

:roll:

The assertion stands that liberal policies, whatever their short-term effects, lead to financial morass and ruin.

Really? Because there are a lot of states with lower %'s of their state pensions funded than California with good credit ratings. In fact California is around 19th of 50 states when it comes to % of it's pension funded.

 

[LowDown]

Ahhh....I see....so the argument is that Detroit is Liberal therefore liberal policies have caused it's decline...not things like the changing economic environment during the late 1900's....but Red States being the poorest in the country is unfair because they were slave states in the 1800's.

The trouble is that it's possible to point to concrete policies advocated by liberals in cities like Detroit that lead to economic decline and finally bankruptcy.

Overspending on high union salaries and benefits in state, county and city budgets, spending too much on projects, going way into debt to maintain the level of spending, trying to maintain spending despite declining revenues, failing to cut back on government employees when services were no longer required, spending to much on boondoggle projects that were supposed to turn the city around, maintaining employees on the payroll that do nothing, channeling money for services and contracts to political cronies, spending way to much for services and contracts.

And all of that doesn't even get into the waste and corruption. Those were just the poor decisions made by duly elected officials.

The members of the Detroit city council clearly were expecting a bailout from Washington. As it turned out the politics didn't support that, so they were left hanging.

Sure, if the country got behind some sort of massive protectionist scheme that forced the consumer to buy nothing but American cars (thereby totally screwing the American consumer) and all that money was still pouring in just so no fact cat union member would ever have to take a pay or benefit cut there would be no problem. But that didn't happen and wasn't going to ever happen. The city council just went on as if it had.

One can argue about whether or not other cities also suffered from poor governance by Democrats. There's no question that that's what happened in Detroit.

 

[iliveonramen]

The trouble is that it's possible to point to concrete policies advocated by liberals in cities like Detroit that lead to economic decline and finally bankruptcy.

Overspending on high union salaries and benefits in state, county and city budgets, spending too much on projects, going way into debt to maintain the level of spending, trying to maintain spending despite declining revenues, failing to cut back on government employees when services were no longer required, spending to much on boondoggle projects that were supposed to turn the city around, maintaining employees on the payroll that do nothing, channeling money for services and contracts to political cronies, spending way to much for services and contracts.

And all of that doesn't even get into the waste and corruption. Those were just the poor decisions made by duly elected officials.

The members of the Detroit city council clearly were expecting a bailout from Washington. As it turned out the politics didn't support that, so they were left hanging.

Sure, if the country got behind some sort of massive protectionist scheme that forced the consumer to buy nothing but American cars (thereby totally screwing the American consumer) and all that money was still pouring in just so no fact cat union member would ever have to take a pay or benefit cut there would be no problem. But that didn't happen and wasn't going to ever happen. The city council just went on as if it had.

One can argue about whether or not other cities also suffered from poor governance by Democrats. There's no question that that's what happened in Detroit.

Detroit is one city...that benefited the most from US manufacturing and was hurt the most by the lost of US manufacturing. Every large city in this country leans left.

 

[Grim17]

You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Pulling the race card is the go to strategy for liberals... It's really all they have sonce their policies continue to fail.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'd rather making voting means tested on the basis of income tax paid, education, and national or community service.

Yeah, candidates for voting should be asked the following questions:

1. Which president armed Saddam Hussein, Bin Ladin, the Ayatolloah, the Ruiz Montt, convicted war criminal?

2. Is evolution a valid scientific theory?

3. What is the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming and what is the factual basis of that consensus?

Any tea partier - er -- proposed voter who can't answer these questions correctly, doesn't get to vote.

 

[Lutherf]

Not according to the article, anyway:

Not quite. What the decision said is that AZ can go to the EAC and petition for an additional requirement to be implemented. I didn't see anything in there about it being either lawful or within the intent of this opinion that AZ can "pigeonhole" the NVRA applications.

Details: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

 

[YoungConserv]

If Conservatives could they would bring back the Poll Tax.

So proving your a citizen= poll tax?

 

[head of joaquin]

So proving your a citizen= poll tax?

I'm pretty sure Kansantine supports laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. What he opposes are the schemes by the GOP to use proof of citizenship to exclude eligible voters, which clearly is the GOP agenda.

 

[LowDown]

I'm pretty sure Kansantine supports laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. What he opposes are the schemes by the GOP to use proof of citizenship to exclude eligible voters, which clearly is the GOP agenda.

Democrats seem to be opposed to anything that would inhibit voter fraud. Even showing some sort of picture ID is supposedly disenfranchising people by their lights, so proving citizenship would be right out.

 

[Masada]

That's what matters, right? That the left loses. Who cares about what's good for the country, or what kinds of laws best uphold our values. Nope. Just gotta beat those lefties.

Also apparently you're doing a victory dance because you stopped the left wing from doing something it was never trying to do. Good for you? This kind of nonsense where the right wing of this country is fighting against an invisible enemy and hurting everyone in the process is why we can't have nice things.

Are you implying that it's good for the country if somehow illegal aliens are able to skirt our laws and participate in our elections? Because it sure sounds like it.....

If you can answer this question, I'll be shocked.

 

[mak2]

DO you have any evidence at all this is a problem? Any...something????

Are you implying that it's good for the country if somehow illegal aliens are able to skirt our laws and participate in our elections? Because it sure sounds like it.....

If you can answer this question, I'll be shocked.

 

[Masada]

DO you have any evidence at all this is a problem? Any...something????

Well, if common sense is any kind of evidence, I have plenty. So, let me ask you this, would it be easier or harder for a NON CITIZEN to vote if we required Voter ID's at the polls?

Not looking for a pissing match, because this is a legitimate question.

The purpose of my question is to highlight practical, common sense laws, that do not impede a CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE ONE BIT. Voter ID cards would curb ILLEGAL VOTING, not legal voting. Any CITIZEN could easily get one for free, like an ID card at the DMV. Non citizens? Not so easily.

So, why wouldn't we take common sense steps to ENSURE that NON CITIZENS aren't voting in our elections? I seriously don't understand why liberals would oppose this, unless of course they WANT illegals to vote, because they believe they will predominately vote dem.

 

[Kanstantine]

DO you have any evidence at all this is a problem? Any...something????

There is to date no evidence of widespread election fraud where non-citizens are registering to vote for Federal elections.

That's why its hard to defend the AZ law. It doesn't appear to be solving a real problem.

 

[Masada]

DO you have any evidence at all this is a problem? Any...something????

If you didn't like my first response, let me ask you THIS way:

Do you support or oppose NON CITIZENS voting in our elections?

That's a really, really simple question.....

 

[Redress]

An interesting take on this Arizona case, which had right wingers gnashing their teeth. If this is correct there will be citizenship checks after all:



Rule of Law » Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

If Conservatives could they would bring back the Poll Tax.

Two good examples of making up things about the other side. The fun part is both beleive it.

 

[Masada]

There is to date no evidence of widespread election fraud where non-citizens are registering to vote for Federal elections.

That's why its hard to defend the AZ law. It doesn't appear to be solving a real problem.

Doesn't matter. Hypothetically, without strict voter laws, ANYONE could go to the polls, show the pollsters an electric bill, and vote. No kidding, it's the truth. If you think that protects the sanctity and integrity of our elections, there's something wrong with you.

 

[mak2]

This is an attempt to fix a nonexistent problem (no noncitizens voting) by making it more difficult for American citizens to vote. The real intent is obvious. Looks to me like who the real criminal is really obvious here. The group repressing the vote of American citizens. Uh, that would be the Repubs. And I think ID is fine, just so everyone can vote.

Well, if common sense is any kind of evidence, I have plenty. So, let me ask you this, would it be easier or harder for a NON CITIZEN to vote if we required Voter ID's at the polls?

Not looking for a pissing match, because this is a legitimate question.

The purpose of my question is to highlight practical, common sense laws, that do not impede a CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE ONE BIT. Voter ID cards would curb ILLEGAL VOTING, not legal voting. Any CITIZEN could easily get one for free, like an ID card at the DMV. Non citizens? Not so easily.

So, why wouldn't we take common sense steps to ENSURE that NON CITIZENS aren't voting in our elections? I seriously don't understand why liberals would oppose this, unless of course they WANT illegals to vote, because they believe they will predominately vote dem.

 

[mak2]

No. :roll:

If you didn't like my first response, let me ask you THIS way:

Do you support or oppose NON CITIZENS voting in our elections?

That's a really, really simple question.....

 

[Masada]

This is an attempt to fix a nonexistent problem (no noncitizens voting) by making it more difficult for American citizens to vote. The real intent is obvious. Looks to me like who the real criminal is really obvious here. The group repressing the vote of American citizens. Uh, that would be the Repubs. And I think ID is fine, just so everyone can vote.

This is bull crap. It's not impeding a citizen's right to vote, not supressing it either. You're telling me it's too much to ask to whip out an ID card before you vote? lol...

If that's really supressive, then we are supressing people their right to buy beer too, because every now and then, the attendent asks me to see a valid ID before they'll sell me the beer.

And just because YOU CLAIM it's a "nonexistent" problem, doesn't mean it's true. Listen to me, ANY PERSON can go register to vote with nothing more than a freaking gas bill. Seriously, a person can take a utility bill and register to vote. Now, fast forward to election day, no ID is required if you already have a registration card. No ID was asked to register either. You're telling me that at no point we should be verifying citizenship??? Even before registration? Because this is the position of the left. This position has a wide open door for ANY NON CITIZEN to register and vote.

So, back to the primary question, are you ok with NON CITIZENS voting in American elections? Yes or no?