- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 14,803
- Reaction score
- 11,542
- Location
- Red Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Those options are already available, by implication - by simply not responding to the OP.There needs to be more options in the poll.
The third option should be "Unsure" for those people who have yet to hear her carefully and artistically crafted speeches to emphasize the things that she will claim to accomplish if elected to PotUS (and will not get to do because either she was lying or because the two parties can't agree on ****) and need time to formulate an opinion.
The fourth option should be "None of your business" which is for those people who believe that a secret ballot means that it's a secret @#$%ing ballot.
I will be voting for the candidates that I feel are in line with my policies and beliefs, are not overly corrupt, and I think have a whelk's chance in a supernova of making good on at least some of their promises.
That's all you're entitled to know and more than I normally tell anyone.
That is fundamentally the issue driving the illegal immigration issue as well - the Democrat Party attempting to pad their voter roles with anyone and everyone they can.
I'm surprised they're not just handing pre-filled ballots to illegals as they cross the border.
Ahyup.
Not only are they NOT disfranchised, but they are in fact FRANCHISED to these very things without rational controls in place to prevent them.
Too liberal for me, but I will vote for her if Paul or Cruz get the nod. May vote for her if Walker gets it, but will have to think on it for a while.
I'm a big government kind of guy, and thus I seek to limit the influence of libertarian thought.
That is fundamentally the issue driving the illegal immigration issue as well - the Democrat Party attempting to pad their voter roles with anyone and everyone they can.
I'm surprised they're not just handing pre-filled ballots to illegals as they cross the border.
Homeland Security Working Overtime to Add "New Americans" by 2016 ElectionThe actual evidence that this occurs on any statistically significant level is sparse to non-existent. The great right-wing bogeyman. Also, the notion that arguing against voter ID is arguing for illegals to vote is patently false.
I'm actually FOR voter ID, but only if certain conditions regarding access to that ID are met -- conditions that are very often (but not always) conspicuously lacking in proposed laws.
However, that has little to do with the subject of the thread.
"Empirical voting patterns among immigrants from minority communities demonstrate that these new voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates. If the empirical rates of support for Democrats continued among these newly naturalized minority voters, Democrats could enjoy an electoral net benefit of millions of new voters in the 2016 presidential election."
Homeland Security Working Overtime to Add "New Americans" by 2016 Election
...to vote for whomever the Democrat candidate may be - Hillary or otherwise.
As I understand it, voter ID laws "disenfranchise" people by making it difficult or impossible to acquire the necessary ID.Wrong again. It is unquestionably true.
To disenfranchise, or to disfranchise, is to DEPRIVE people of something - in this case the right to vote.
Voter ID laws - laws requiring registered voters to prove their identity before they cast their ballot disfranchise no one - DEPRIVE no one - save those who are not eligible to vote - which eligibility has nothing to do with voter ID laws in the first place, and ergo have nothing to do with this so-called disenfranchisement either.
Those who argue against requiring registered voters to prove their identity before they vote are, fundamentally, arguing to give the right to vote to anyone, citizen or not.
Well, to be precise, for days - 2 days actually ...since April 23, 2015 - 6:19 PMThis canard has been flying around for years.
No voter ID law makes acquiring an ID difficult, let alone impossible to obtain. Any supposed "difficulties" in acquiring an ID are a function of something altogether unrelated to laws requiring people HAVE proper proof of who they are.As I understand it, voter ID laws "disenfranchise" people by making it difficult or impossible to acquire the necessary ID.
< snip >
As I understand it, voter ID laws "disenfranchise" people by making it difficult or impossible to acquire the necessary ID.
Especially for poor and/or elderly persons.
It is because of this that IMO, any voter ID law must provide EXTENSIVE help for people unable to easily acquire said ID.
And by that I mean driving to their homes to get them ID'd, if necessary.
Ideally, it would require several years of public announcements and free ID creation AT polling places and otherwise, before any kind of requirement to vote would be reasonable.
Even then people would miss out, say when they moved to the state or lost their ID.
Well, to be precise, for days - 2 days actually ...since April 23, 2015 - 6:19 PM
The actual evidence that this occurs on any statistically significant level is sparse to non-existent. The great right-wing bogeyman. Also, the notion that arguing against voter ID is arguing for illegals to vote is patently false.
Is that why the liberals were screaming like banshees over the Diebold voting machines during both the 2000 and 2004 elections?
Ahyup - it's rather ironic how the "most transparent administration" in US history is anything but - particularly when it comes to their true motives.Good morning, EdwinWillers. :2wave:
I have never understood the thinking that ID's should not be necessary for voting! How has everything become so perverted and one-sided in this country lately? I do understand all too well why some argue that point, however, but everyone knows why they're doing it! :thumbdown:
^ precisely this
The accusation, or the article? The article is 2 days old.You think PJ Media just came up with this?
Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.
His isolationism for one...his incredibly insane rhetoric on foreign policy for another.
Of course they're not nation building. I was being facetious using that term because that's the guise they go under when they invade countries under false pretense. They "liberated" Iraq. They "liberated" the Libyans.I think nation building is a very exaggerated term. It's not what we are doing. When we defeated Germany and Japan in WW2 for instance, we did not build a new government for them, we merely made certain that the evil bastards who were running those governments did not reconstitute. In Germany's case, that would be the Nazis. Those nations formed their own new governments.
We have bigger problems than to worry about giving money that we don't have to other countries. If we are "cutoff" by a country because we didn't have any free money for them, there's no loss there anyway.The reality is that while we do need to be spending a lot less money on foreign aid, some of it is absolutely necessary unless we want to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Some of our important allies would not survive without it.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that "voter ID laws sometimes (often?) require ID's that are difficult or impossible for poor and/or elderly persons to get".No voter ID law makes acquiring an ID difficult, let alone impossible to obtain. Any supposed "difficulties" in acquiring an ID are a function of something altogether unrelated to laws requiring people HAVE proper proof of who they are.
Indeed, acquiring an ID is no more difficult for people than the act of voting itself.
Regardless, conflating the two issues does nothing to address either one. Moreover, IF someone is in a situation where it MAY be difficult to obtain an ID, there are a myriad of simple solutions to address that issue.
What say you?
Well, again, then the issue isn't the voter ID law, is it? The issue is whatever the difficulty may be, for whomever, or however few people there be that are having [whatever] difficulties obtaining an ID.Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that "voter ID laws sometimes (often?) require ID's that are difficult or impossible for poor and/or elderly persons to get".
This makes it sound like one has to travel across the country in a stretch limo to get an ID card.Perhaps because the locations you must travel to are far/costly, or that the information required to verify info is complicated.
Well, we make accommodations for far, far greater financial difficulties in every other aspect of life, why not for something as simple as an ID? I mean goodness - what's a new ID cost anyway? $10? $15? $20? And what the heck does metro bus fare cost? $1.50? $2.50? And how often does one need to renew a license? Every other year? 5 years? I'm up to 10 years before I have to renew now.In worst case scenarios, you actually have to pay money for ID's. I know I have to pay the state money each time I renew my DL.
I find it very interesting that those who clamor so hard and loud for government largesse in virtually every other area of the lives of the lower end of the economic scale - be it homes, cars/transportation, clothing, cell phones, taxes, food, healthcare... you name it - that those same people can't see a way... nay REFUSE TO EVEN CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES to something which, economically speaking, is but a mere fraction of the cost virtually every other accommodation they've fought for.There are people out there who barely have enough money for basic necessities, let alone time and money to travel to the nearest ID center.
Well, again, then the issue isn't the voter ID law, is it? The issue is whatever the difficulty may be, for whomever, or however few people there be that are having [whatever] difficulties obtaining an ID.
This makes it sound like one has to travel across the country in a stretch limo to get an ID card.
Well, we make accommodations for far, far greater financial difficulties in every other aspect of life, why not for something as simple as an ID? I mean goodness - what's a new ID cost anyway? $10? $15? $20? And what the heck does metro bus fare cost? $1.50? $2.50? And how often does one need to renew a license? Every other year? 5 years? I'm up to 10 years before I have to renew now.
Do you realize, particularly in context, just how ridiculous that ["it's too costly"] argument sounds?
I find it very interesting that those who clamor so hard and loud for government largesse in virtually every other area of the lives of the lower end of the economic scale - be it homes, cars/transportation, clothing, cell phones, taxes, food, healthcare... you name it - that those same people can't see a way... nay REFUSE TO EVEN CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES to something which, economically speaking, is but a mere fraction of the cost virtually every other accommodation they've fought for.
Frankly, that alone casts a very dark shadow on the true motive behind the refusal to require voters to show a valid ID to vote.
Ok, regale us then with all the options Democrats have put forth to solve the "it costs too much" argument such that they can be for voter ID laws."Refuse to consider alternatives"? That's simply incorrect.
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?