ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I already articulated my "general logic" in my first post. Rights should only be restricted when a significant problem presents itself. Yelling "fire" in a theater is a significant problem - therefore, free speech should be limited in that sense. Psychos who don't need guns is also a problem, so IDs are a logical restriction Cyber-bullying is only a problem if it becomes harassment which is also a significant problem. Voter fraud - not a significant problem.I don't agree. You say that requireing ID to get a gun, a constitutional right, is a good thing because guns can kill. Would you apply the same logic to freedom of speech even though it can kill also?
Mass. High School Girl Commits Suicide after being Cyber-Bullied
Lots of things have part of their origins in other cultures and nations. That is nothing new. Basketball is suppose to go back to Mayan or Aztec culture.
I do understand your contention that baseball is boring. It is slow and you really have to understand the nuances of the game to appreciate the slower moments. I know you love tennis but truthfully I found that also boring. I do love badminton - as a playing sport - however. To each their own I guess.
It's not a lot no matter how much you swing it because it has zero effect on the elections which is the problem that voter fraud would pose if it existed in any way that mattered.As I keep mentioning their were only 2 Federal elections in that time frame so 86, is allot. You are trying desperately to make it sound like it is much less than it really is. You are also desperately trying to leave out state and local elections.
That is also convictions only, how many were arrested and then went to trial? How many got off?
Your reasoning is flawed.
There's no "common sense" in saying, "Look we have a problem that isn't that much of a problem and is probably as close to perfect as we're going to get for federal elections, so let's just add another restriction onto other people's rights." Absolutely not. I enjoy my rights and they ought not be restricted unless a significant problem becomes apparent OR unless the government ensures that every person eligible to vote gets an ID.You are confusing "bigotry" and "paranoia" with common sense.
That wasn't the reasoning.
The reasoning was that it is a Constitutional right, although even that is debatable, but none the less, so is firearm ownership.
I disagree that a vote going to the wrong person is a lesser evil.
The amount of people it will negatively effect, is about the same as the amount of people that get convicted of voter fraud.
It's a ridiculous charge, that getting an ID is a hardship.
No, it doesn't.That's not what the article says is it? It shows that both Clinton's and Obama's signatures had around 150 fraudulant signatures. [...]
An estimated 150 of the signatures on both petitions may be fakes, [...]
Mmm, mmm, mmm.... hair on fire.[...] I haven't suggested anything. I've just stated what the article said. Nothing more, nothing less.
So a terrorist legally purchasing guns is a lesser evil? Has anybody ever died because of voter fraud? If voter fraud is discovered and is proven, then there should be a legal remedy. If somebody currently is in office and won that office through fraud, then they should not be excused from their position until a fair elect has occurred or the votes are counted accurately. If everybody is so damn concerned about fraud, and that's a legitimate concern btw, they you should concern yourself's with solutions and remedies when fraud actually does occur. Simply creating this type of legislation is not going to prevent all types of fraud. You can't bring somebody back from the dead however, so I'd say putting a gun in the wrong hands is definitively not the lesser evil.
Furthermore, if people want to prevent voter fraud... again it's a legitimate concern, then have the discussion in an honest manner. Does anybody here have an example of large scale voter fraud actually swaying an election in this country? How secure is our voting system as it is? How many of you honestly know?
Why does it have to be an ID... why not a social security card, a birth certificate, or something even stating you're a legal resident? I don't think the government should force us to jump through hoops to vote. Wanting to protect a democratic process is a value we can all respect, but why can't it be achieved in other ways... other ways that won't cost the voter any money at all? Something from the voter board, a specific Id saying you're a legitimate voter even... why create extra steps and cause a voter to go stand in line at the license of motor vehicles and during election season for hours and pay a charge? Sorry, but if I ever end up standing in an overcrowded office of motor vehicles Oct - Nov just to cast a vote because of government legislation, I'll be ****ing pissed. Voting shouldn't be an unnecessary, inconvenience and hassle, and it definitely shouldn't cost us any money to vote.
You can do more damage with a bad vote than a gun. A shooter can take out x number of people during a rampage ruining y amount of lives but a bad politician can ruin all of our lives simultaneously.I dunno, some pretty bad people have been elected before, but I really don't want to Godwin this thread up.
It's fine, I just don't see a problem with voter ID, if it's required to get a gun, it should be a requirement to vote.
It's not unreasonable at all.
It is very hard for the dead to get photo IDs.How would it disenfranchise voters? We're used to showing photo ID for stuff.
Yeah. I admit it. I want to supress the Democratic vote. Especially the dead voter, the repeat voters (vote early, vote often) and the illegal alien voters. You got me on that one.. . .It's usually true that when voter turnout is suppressed, that's good for the Republican party. I wonder if the real reason it's a cause celebre on the right these days has anything to do with that....actually I don't. It's all about winning, not what's right or fair.
If they cannot meet the basic essentials of survival, by definition, doesn't that make them democrats?Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation proving their citizenship. ...
Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification...
Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.10 Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identification. Our survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did not achieve statistical significance
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf
Hmmm...the last election? Last presidential election? Possibly. Some of the margins were very thin.Please don't tell us you think that somehow "voter fraud" threw the last election. Promise me you have some shame, some pride and some intelligence....
That is one perspective. When the nation's citizens come to believe that the vote is not legitimate there is one more reason for revolution. So let's make sure the vote is seen as legitimate. We must take reasonable steps to ensure that only those who are authorized to vote may do so. We also need to make sure that votes are counted properly.The risks of a firearm going to the wrong person have far more severe consequences than a vote going to the wrong person.
I have no problem with a Federal law requiring all Americans show a government issued picture ID, in order to vote.
However, the cost of such an ID must be paid for by the govt.
I’ve been reading the posts on this thread. I’m surprised that this subject has made a root cause of the difference between people on the Right and the Left stand out. I’m going to omit any particular issue because that issue itself will become the point of discussion. I’m looking at a more root cause of the difference. Let me put it this way: Any fraud is bad, criminal, from the POV of the Right. Fraud, from the POV of the left, is bad also. And any particular incremental case of fraud is thought to be equivalently bad by both the Left and Right. The difference lies in the next step; i.e. what to do about it. The Left and Right want an easy solution to stop the fraud. The Left wants to understand the frequency of the frauds. The Right knows that any fraud is bad and must be stopped. The Left looks at the easy solutions and finds them inadequate for stopping intentional fraud by individuals. The Right knows that any fraud is bad and must be stopped. The Left analyzes effective solutions and finds the side effects will be worse than the problem. The Right knows that any fraud is bad and effective solution must be applied by the Government and the Left must be complicit in the fraud because they aren’t willing to stop large organized voter fraud or the possibility of a fraudulent voter voting. So it’s: Any fraud is bad and must be stopped. Vs. Ok there may be some fraud but the solutions are worse. Follow the rules vs. analysis. Agreement is impossible.
I don't see revolution because of voter fraud to be an actual possibility so that doesn't concern me. Moreover, the United States already has taken reasonable steps to ensure that only those who are authorized to vote may do so which is which why only 70 people in 5 years from 2002-2007 were convicted of voter fraud for federal elections. Those are near perfect elections.That is one perspective. When the nation's citizens come to believe that the vote is not legitimate there is one more reason for revolution. So let's make sure the vote is seen as legitimate. We must take reasonable steps to ensure that only those who are authorized to vote may do so. We also need to make sure that votes are counted properly.
Actually, no you can't. A shooter can take out X number of people and a bad vote will have zero effect on an election because it's beyond negligible. Nice try, but no cigar.You can do more damage with a bad vote than a gun. A shooter can take out x number of people during a rampage ruining y amount of lives but a bad politician can ruin all of our lives simultaneously.
If your reasoning was just to show that firearm ownership and voting are rights, why would you mention the requirements for obtaining a firearm and highlight "show a photo ID"? You could have just said, "Owning a firearm is a right too".That wasn't the reasoning.
The reasoning was that it is a Constitutional right, although even that is debatable, but none the less, so is firearm ownership.
Which doesn't make much sense considering that one gun can kill a bunch of people and one vote does absolutely nothing to a federal election.I disagree that a vote going to the wrong person is a lesser evil.
It is very hard for the dead to get photo IDs.
And the repeat voters would have to get reasonably good second, third, and fourth sets of photo ID...darned inconvenient.
Illegal aliens? They would not have the opportunity to vote.
Those categories could account for as much as 10% of the Democratic voters. And you want to disenfranchise them...some repeatedly!
There isn't enough free memory out there to adequately describe how wrong you are on both counts. If I gave you the detailed history of bad governance you would be here a while.Actually, no you can't. A shooter can take out X number of people and a bad vote will have zero effect on an election because it's beyond negligible. Nice try, but no cigar.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?