Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 133

Thread: Culture War

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    why would it be the upper class? The group which it reduces voting numbers from most is the elderly. The dependent poor don't really vote in huge numbers anyway. I think it might put a lid on spending. Spending is big government's main tool for power.
    It might put the lid on some types of spending but it would allow other types of spending. So if curbing spending is your only goal there has to be better ways.
    Who hates iowa?


  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopherguy0723 View Post
    Democracies and republics are stronger and viewed more legitimately by their people when more citizens vote. There's a bigger mandate to make laws and it gives more people a voice to deteine what will hapoen to them and what will happen to others.

    As for stupidity, well, stupid people have voted since voting was implemented. Stupid people get to have a voice too, not just elites.
    I think everyone that is eligible should be able to and should vote. I can't believe there isn't a way for that to happen with a voter ID. Voter fraud, on either side, any way you slice it, is a real thing. It's incomprehensible that we can't implement a process for eligible voters to obtain some kind of card, perhaps key-coded or whatever, that they need to produce when they go and vote.

    I want everyone that is eligible to vote to vote and to do so legally. Plain and simple. It's 2019, it can't be that hard to figure out.
    - Respect is the ultimate currency

  3. #63

    Default

    I continue to be the conservative one to say the cost / value benefit of a voter id isn't needed given the continual proof of the myths of voter fraud. Only big government types want to expand government to solve this type of problem.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monk10 View Post
    I continue to be the conservative one to say the cost / value benefit of a voter id isn't needed given the continual proof of the myths of voter fraud. Only big government types want to expand government to solve this type of problem.
    It's not a myth- that's just a crazy assessment of the situation. It's not a bigger government situation to require an ID. If you can't provide one or are too lazy to get one or just don't want to, then you don't have much respect for liberty. Liberty has requirements and that's not a contradiction. Are you required to have ID to drive a car??

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    It might put the lid on some types of spending but it would allow other types of spending. So if curbing spending is your only goal there has to be better ways.
    Spending is pretty much a one way street, because the recipient usually receives a heck of a lot more than the individual taxpayer pays, and so there is a mismatch in terms of incentives. You care way more about your $1000 subsidy than I do about my $1 in tax. But at some point, we will hit the wall and need to make cuts. And at that point, eliminating from the voting pool those who are only recipients, means we might be able to get back on track.

    What other types of spending did you think it would increase? I don't think it's the only or best way, just an idea.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monk10 View Post
    I continue to be the conservative one to say the cost / value benefit of a voter id isn't needed given the continual proof of the myths of voter fraud. Only big government types want to expand government to solve this type of problem.
    I might have been swayed by that argument had I not watched a video of high ranking Democrat operatives talking about how they bus in illegal voters to polls. I'm of the mind that it's happening a lot and we just don't have any way to track it. And the absolute resistance to any sort of control tells me I'm on the right track. I believe that YOU might think the cost benefit is not worth it, but I don't believe those who are really screaming the loudest about it.

    And I really have to say that this is not in any way an expansion of government. A voter ID is already held by the vast majority of the country. It's very hard to live in this country without one. It requires no additional bureaucracy to add this requirement, it already exists.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    Uh huh. It's funny how the R's let such terribly lax elections go on for decades until they started losing, looked at the coming demographic trends and said "oh $%^^ what are we going to do?"
    This is such an ignorant and partisan take. Voter IDs laws started popping up in the 1970s and picked up momentum around 2000 (when Republicans were winning elections), and it was done in red, purple, and blue states, like Minnesota, Rhode Island, Washington, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...d-history.aspx

    It is likely more of a sign of an ever increasing population of illegal UNDOCUMENTED immigrants living long lives in the country and not a response election losses.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    More voters is only better if it is an indication of their desire to further and retain liberty. As it stands today the Democrats are attempting to recruit more voters who will demand more services from the government- so that the government ultimately has more power over them. They are tempting the unwitting into selling their souls for for a bowl of soup.

    You should have to have a drivers license or legit government photo ID that proves citizenship, be at least 21 years old or serving in the military, you should be required to pass a short test in English (in person not on line). It should not be made easier. Liberty is not easy.
    online is one word. no voting for you!
    We have a philosophical difference on what constitutes a law

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtenchamps1899 View Post
    online is one word. no voting for you!
    Bga has been dpo’ed

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    33,564
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    If the dependent poor don't vote in large #'s, how is dependents voting themselves benefits a huge issue?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    33,564
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monk10 View Post
    I continue to be the conservative one to say the cost / value benefit of a voter id isn't needed given the continual proof of the myths of voter fraud. Only big government types want to expand government to solve this type of problem.
    +1. If in person voter fraud (the only kind solved by requiring an ID) was rampant, they would have plenty of cases to point to. As it is, there are almost none, and the ones that occur are more than 50% Republicans.

    I can be convinced that not every local precinct runs the cleanest elections. But imposing strict voter ID requirements does nothing to solve an election official in Chicago or backwoods Alabama changing the vote count.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    33,564
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KillerGopherFan View Post
    This is such an ignorant and partisan take. Voter IDs laws started popping up in the 1970s and picked up momentum around 2000 (when Republicans were winning elections), and it was done in red, purple, and blue states, like Minnesota, Rhode Island, Washington, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...d-history.aspx

    It is likely more of a sign of an ever increasing population of illegal UNDOCUMENTED immigrants living long lives in the country and not a response election losses.
    Minnesota very often has the highest voter turnout and does not require a photo ID. You must prove your residency, but if your ID is out of date you can use a utility bill. This is a reasonable requirement and they have high turnout and low fraud. That is not the goal of the red states with the strictest laws.

    It is a response to losses. For example, ND (not a haven for illegals) made it difficult for Native Americans to vote after they helped elect a Dem Senator. They don't even try to hide it. They're shameless.

  13. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    +1. If in person voter fraud (the only kind solved by requiring an ID) was rampant, they would have plenty of cases to point to. As it is, there are almost none, and the ones that occur are more than 50% Republicans.

    I can be convinced that not every local precinct runs the cleanest elections. But imposing strict voter ID requirements does nothing to solve an election official in Chicago or backwoods Alabama changing the vote count.
    You’re so worried about the integrity of voting being process being interfered with by the Russians, I have to ask, how many votes did the Russians change in the last presidential election?

    If none, I guess we shouldn’t worry about it, huh?

    The point is voting integrity requires deterrent actions, whether it’s Russian interference or dead people voting.

    https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10...ond-the-grave/

    CHICAGO (CBS) — Susie Sallee was buried in 1998. Yet records show she voted in Chicago 12 years later.

    Victor Crosswell died in 1994, but records show he’s voted six times since then.

    And then there’s Floyd Stevens. Records show he’s voted 11 times since his death in 1993.

    “It’s crazy,” Sharon Stevens Anderson, Stevens’ daughter, tells CBS 2’s Pam Zekman. “I don’t see how people can be able to do something like that and get away with it.”

    Those are just a few of the cases CBS 2 Investigators found by merging Chicago Board of Election voter histories with the death master file from the Social Security Administration.

    In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade...

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    33,564
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    A couple of dead people possibly voting justifies stopping tens of thousands of others from voting? And would voter ID laws have stopped any of these cases? Wouldn't better communication between government agencies to remove deceased folks from the rolls be a better plan of attack?

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howeda7 View Post
    If the dependent poor don't vote in large #'s, how is dependents voting themselves benefits a huge issue?
    I’ll happily answer but you can’t keep pretending you’re ignoring me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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