2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426599]I find it very interesting how the die-hard right wingers on this thread (Jackson, Toymann, Doppel, etc) have now given up ranting about how Romney WILL win this election (clearly he is the underdog at this point) and have resorted to drivel about why Romney SHOULD win this election.[/QUOTE]I refer you to my last post SnakeBoy!

[QUOTE=Toymann]In spite of your fantasy that the election is a prom queen contest, you again, as always miss the point. The 6% that will decide this election want someone who has a track record of getting the job done! Period! End of story! All polls of independents have been favouring Romney from the get go. Factor in the battleground states are mostly in the midwest (Florida is already in the bag dude) , and a Romney landslide is all but a forgone conclusion. It's not a popularity contest dumbo, america needs a closer and Obomanation has shown he is anything BUT! Keep howling at the moon. I am sure after the election you will crawl under your rock and never be heard from again on this board. It was just 20 months ago that the country voted for the greatest liberal slaughter in history. What makes you think anything has changed! It never fails to amaze me how you dudes like you and esten fail understand even the basics of small town america. Luckily most americans don't live in huge cities (at least not yet) , and the country remains a center right mosiac. Keep whistling past the cemetary SnakeBoy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]As they say in court,"asked and answered"! LMAO. Do you plan to come to next weeks dinner party dude? I arrive in BA that morning and will be happy to buy the first beer. I am curious to see if you even really exist. Monger on SnakeBoy. Toymann.

Ps. No worries dude, my actual persona is very different from my Toymann persona. Just ask anyone who has met met me in the flesh. Assuming you really live in BA I can't imagine why you wouldn't join us for some good food, drink and fun conversation. I promise we won't talk politics. Honest!

I was doing some financial planning yesterday and joked about reaching a significant number. The lawyer just said it was something he didn't need to worry about. Either the lawyer doesn't believe in compounding returns or he thinks the world is coming to an end.

Then this morning a whole lot of gloom on Realclearmarkets. Com.

[url]http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/21/paul-krugmans-obsolescence[/url]

[url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-or-romney-stock-market-loses-20-by-2016-2012-09-21?link=MW_story_popular[/url]

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/09/21/the-coming-obama-recession-of-2013/[/url]

[url]http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/the-economy/articles/greece-euro-eurozone-banks-recession-european/9/21/2012/id/44233?page=full[/url]

It is just going to be a slog and grind guys. To use a football metaphor, you probably are not going to throw a 60 yard touchdown pass. You are probably going to have to put together a 12-play drive and overcome a holding penalty or two.

The polling data now:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html[/url]

Electoral college state today:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html[/url]

Who tells more lies while campaigning-they are both equally full of shit-from the great bastion of leftist communist thought which is quoted by dick Cheney and down the block from the Wharton school.

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/[/url]

The truth is that the USA is fairly evenly divided and compromise is out of the question so whatever happens, the distortions that fuel the lack of a shared vision for the future will continue.

Note: I do not read the political threads here, but occasionally make a similar posting. Occasionally some facts don't hurt the discourse or lack of discourse.

Chicago well know for corruption.

From Politicians to Gangsters.

Watch this, it could be based on Daly, but not you know who.

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833285/[/url]

It is called Boss, the mayor of the city.

P. S. Yes, Jackson this doesn't have anything to do with the "2012 Elections in the USA" thread.

Or Does It?

P.S. But the Sex is Great, it makes Clinton look like an Amateur.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426664]P. S. Yes, Jackson this doesn't have anything to do with the "2012 Elections in the USA" thread.

Or Does It?[/QUOTE]"Vote early, vote often" is associated with Chicago and Daley's Democrat political machine. If modern day Democrats remembered this and other history, including more recent events, they'd be less likely to condemn measures like voter identification to insure against voter fraud.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;426670]"Vote early, vote often" is associated with Chicago and Daley's Democrat political machine. If modern day Democrats remembered this and other history, including more recent events, they'd be less likely to condemn measures like voter identification to insure against voter fraud.[/QUOTE]We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426671]We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.[/QUOTE]The Jim Crow South? That was brought about by Democrats? The only people who potentially should have any problem complying with voter ID laws are the elderly. And they're more likely to vote Republican. IMHO it's worth it, to make sure people only vote once and are entitled to vote. There's a woman, who happens to be a Democrat, in a nearby community to mine that will be voting for Obama twice, once in Texas and once in New Mexico. That's not fair. And I'm sure more wide scale voter fraud still goes on where people can get away with it. You can read about it in the press.

Calling voter fraud laws "systematic disenfranchisation of minorities" is ridiculous. How do they have ANYTHING to do with race? The Democrat party bosses however know there are people out there who are foolish enough to believe this line of crap and who as a result will be more likely to turn out to vote.

I understand your pain however. This would make it more difficult for Democrat operatives to load up a group of people in a bus and drive them around from location to location to vote, again and again.

BTW, I do agree the laws should be written so they do not disenfranchise the poor. That means no charge to be issued a voter ID, if you have no driver's license.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426671]We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.[/QUOTE]Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo ID.

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an ID card [b]like everybody else[/b]!

Here's an idea: If you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to go to the local DMV and get a free ID card, then you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, As many of you know, I recently returned from an extensive trip during which American politics was a topic of conversation with many of the people I was staying with during my travels. To a man, my generally liberal thinking friends in Greece, Germany, Thailand, Australia and The Philippines were always stunned to learn that one did not need to show any form if identification to vote in an American election.

In many cases, in places like Texas and Wyoming many folks live something like 100 miles from the nearest DMV. And of course, they don't drive, and don't own cars, which is why they lack ID in the first place. It takes more than smarts to travel to the DMV if it's 100 miles away and you don't drive, and you live in an area with little or no public transportation. It takes RESOURCES, and many of these folks lack these resources. Just because the ID card is free, the transportation to the DMV might still cost hundreds of dollars Which is why the Courts have consistently come down against these intentionally racist voter ID laws.

The tool you are referring to is money. And the simple fact is, not everyone has it. But the law still gives people without money, the right to vote.

The Law even gives stupid people the right to vote, as evidenced by the fact that George W. Bush was elected President twice.

BTW, if a state thinks that EVERY resident should have an ID, the state certainly has the resources to mail everyone that is on their voting rolls one at no cost and requiring little or no effort from them. There are plenty of ways to ID people that don't require them to get a photograph done at a physical location that might be a hundred miles away from them.



[QUOTE=Jackson; 426675]Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo I'd.

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an I'd card [b]like everybody else[/b]!

Here's an idea: If you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to go to the local DMV and get a free I'd card, then you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, As many of you know, I recently returned from an extensive trip during which American politics was a topic of conversation with many of the people I was staying with during my travels. To a man, my generally liberal thinking friends in Greece, Germany, Thailand, Australia and The Philippines were always stunned to learn that one did not need to show any form if identification to vote in an American election.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426674]The Jim Crow South? That was brought about by Democrats? The only people who potentially should have any problem complying with voter I'd laws are the elderly. And they're more likely to vote Republican. IMHO it's worth it, to make sure people only vote once and are entitled to vote. There's a woman, who happens to be a Democrat, in a nearby community to mine that will be voting for Obama twice, once in Texas and once in New Mexico. That's not fair. And I'm sure more wide scale voter fraud still goes on where people can get away with it. You can read about it in the press.

Calling voter fraud laws "systematic disenfranchisation of minorities" is ridiculous. How do they have ANYTHING to do with race? The Democrat party bosses however know there are people out there who are foolish enough to believe this line of crap and who as a result will be more likely to turn out to vote.

I understand your pain however. This would make it more difficult for Democrat operatives to load up a group of people in a bus and drive them around from location to location to vote, again and again.

BTW, I do agree the laws should be written so they do not disenfranchise the poor. That means no charge to be issued a voter I'd, if you have no driver's license.[/QUOTE]Yes, it's true that at the time up until the early 1960s, those folks were Democrats, also known as Dixiecrats. But it was Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson that effectively reversed that situation, when LBJ forced through the voting rights act, and Nixon responded by developing what became known as "The Southern Strategy" to pander to southern racists who felt abandoned by LBJ's push for civil rights, to get them to vote Republican. Ever since the end of the 1960s, the racists in the South mostly switched parties, along with Politicians like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Jesse Helms, and Lester Maddox.

BTW, can you document those cases of Democratic (the word has an "ic" at the end of it, BTW) operatives who loaded up buses and took the same people to vote in multiple locations in national elections in the past few decades? It's a myth. The Jim Crow South, BTW, and the disenfranchisement of blacks was NOT a myth, and irrespective of the party affiliations of those who did it, the main mechanism that they used was Voter ID schemes - and that's why those schemes are largely unconstitutional in this country - as a result of Supreme Court decisions. BTW, those Supreme Court decisions were hardly "ridiculous" - they came about through real, systematic disenfrancisement that the Court remedied.

And the issue is NOT the cost of the ID - it's the cost of getting to where the ID is issued. If the state wants to implement this, it would be very simple to implement it by mail, in a manner that even poor people without transportation could deal with. But that's obviously contrary to the intention of these laws as they are written - which is to disenfranchise people without much transit mobility - i.e the poor.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426678]In many cases, in places like Texas and Wyoming many folks live something like 100 miles from the nearest DMV. And of course, they don't drive, and don't own cars, which is why they lack ID in the first place.[/QUOTE]What total nonsense. At times like these I just am amazed how stupid wild-ass liberals like you can be! How do you think these people get there groceries? They drive into town dumbo! Which has ID facilities available and they are FREE! Oh my! Stop talking about things you know nothing about city boy. It's obvious you are a urban cowboy at best. Your point is just goofy as hell. Hate to tell ya this, I live in wyoming and we have had voter ID forever. No one bitchs, how the hell can you survive in the US in 2012 without a valid ID? Oh, I forgot, if you are here illegally then maybe you don't have ID. LMAO. Monger On All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;426680]What total nonsense. At times like these I just am amazed how stupid wild-ass liberals like you can be! How do you think these people get there groceries? They drive into town dumbo! Which has ID facilities available and they are FREE! Oh my! Stop talking about things you know nothing about city boy. It's obvious you are a urban cowboy at best. Your point is just goofy as hell. Hate to tell ya this, I live in wyoming and we have had voter ID forever. No one bitchs, how the hell can you survive in the US in 2012 without a valid ID? Oh, I forgot, if you are here illegally then maybe you don't have I'd. LMAO. Monger On All. Toymann[/QUOTE]

What's nonsense about it? It's a simple fact that many folks in rural Texas and Wyoming live 100 or so miles from the nearest DMV. There sure as heck is NOT a DMV in every town with a grocery store. Many of them take a bus, or hitchhike into town to buy groceries. They sure don't drive if they don't own a car. Sorry to let the facts get in the way of your rant.

BTW, if you don't drive, and you don't have a bank account, you really don't need an ID to do much of anything else. But you still have the right to vote. And if you ARE registered to vote, shouldn't the state provide you with that ID at the moment you register? You can register by mail. The state should then send you your ID in the return mail.

Not much around.

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49152114[/url]

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426679]BTW, can you document those cases of Democratic (the word has an "ic" at the end of it, BTW) operatives who loaded up buses and took the same people to vote in multiple locations in national elections in the past few decades?[/QUOTE]I'm a libertarian. I come from a long line of Democrats. One of my relatives stuffed ballot boxes for a Democrat candidate. He probably didn't load up buses. He didn't explain to me exactly what he did. But from what I've read this U.S. senate election was won by the votes of dead people. Voter ID requirements and observers at polling stations would have prevented this.

Why do you maintain that race has anything to do with this issue, besides being a fallacious talking point to get out the vote?

Having lived in the actual places that you describe, I echo what Toymann says. The few voters that live in remote parts of Texas and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican so I don't know why you'd care. You may be correct that some sort of distribution of voter ID's by mail would work, but I'm not sure. You would have the problem of verifying that the person who's voting is the same person on the card. I could see crooked registrar's enabling the type of fraud I describe above if the voter claims he doesn't have a photo ID.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426683]I'm a libertarian. I come from a long line of Democrats. One of my relatives stuffed ballot boxes for a Democrat candidate. He probably didn't load up buses. He didn't explain to me exactly what he did. But from what I've read the election was won by the votes of dead people. Voter I'd requirements and observers at polling stations would have prevented this.

Why do you maintain that race has anything to do with this issue, besides being a fallacious talking point to get out the vote?

Having lived in the actual places that you describe, I echo what Toymann says. Voters in remote parts of Texas and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican so I don't know why you'd care. You may be correct that some sort of distribution of voter I'd's by mail would work, but I'm not sure. You would have the problem of verifying that the person who's voting is the same person on the card. I could see crooked registrar's enabling the type of fraud I describe above if there's no photo on the I'd.[/QUOTE]So in other words, we should disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people because of your bullshit hearsay anecdote? Feel free to actually provide proof that it happened, rather than I heard it from a relative who was probably drunk when he was talking.

The fact is Texas is not nearly as overwhelmingly Republican as you think it is, and the same crap is also being pulled in Pennsylvania and Ohio and elsewhere. Frankly, I really DON'T care what happens in Wyoming, as it's already established itself as probably the stupidest state in the nation - having sent Dick Cheney to represent it in Congress, and fortunately, it has very few electoral votes. And it's true that race is less an issue than this being about disenfranchising poor people. So that makes it OK in your small mind?

BTW, we could certainly enable using fingerprints to ID voters, just like they do in poor Arab nations - the registration application could easily have a sticker put on it that takes a fingerprint - and this could be checked at the polls, or, more sensibly, afterwards if the vote was challenged, which would reduce the cost by factors of hundreds, or thousands even. It costs pennies to include a fingerprint sticker on the mail-in registration form, and can be done with little to no cost added for the impoverished voter - and not make them travel up to a hundred miles to the DMV. Oh, BTW, it's obviously too late to do this for THIS election, but this could certainly be implemented for future elections. But again, that thwarts the REAL intent of these voter-ID drives - which is to alter the result of THIS election specifically, by disenfranchising the poor.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426684]Feel free to actually provide proof that it happened, rather than I heard it from a relative who was probably drunk when he was talking.[/QUOTE][url]Http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm[/url]

He was an alcoholic, although sober when he told the story.

"Hundreds of thousands of people disenfranchised" sounds to me more like "a lost opportunity to have hundreds of thousands votes cast, for people that never went to the polls."

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426685][url]Http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm[/url]

He was an alcoholic, although sober when he told the story.

"Hundreds of thousands of people disenfranchised" sounds to me more like "a lost opportunity to have hundreds of thousands votes cast, for people that never went to the polls."[/QUOTE]Obviously, you missed it when I asked you to document any fraudulent election IN THE PAST FEW DECADES. Yes, there were a few that happened 50+ years ago, but that also bypasses THOUSANDS of elections where blacks were disenfranchised that have happened since then, in the 1950s and 1960s by bogus Voter ID schemes and other Jim Crow issues.

BTW, something like 98.7% of all American citizen adults have drivers licenses - even though only 87% of them actually drive. That leaves over 3 MILLION who don't have licenses, and this obviously skews heavily to the poor. Your desire would be disenfranchise some substantial percentage of 3 MILLION legitimate American citizens who legally have the right to vote, with the burden of traveling to a DMV, when they don't drive and are poor. Clearly, that's Hundreds of Thousands of legitimately legal voters.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 426683]I'm a libertarian. I come from a long line of Democrats. One of my relatives stuffed ballot boxes for a Democrat candidate. He probably didn't load up buses. He didn't explain to me exactly what he did. But from what I've read this USA senate election was won by the votes of dead people. Voter I'd requirements and observers at polling stations would have prevented this.

Why do you maintain that race has anything to do with this issue, besides being a fallacious talking point to get out the vote?

Having lived in the actual places that you describe, I echo what Toymann says. The few voters that live in remote parts of Texas and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican so I don't know why you'd care. You may be correct that some sort of distribution of voter I'd's by mail would work, but I'm not sure. You would have the problem of verifying that the person who's voting is the same person on the card. I could see crooked registrar's enabling the type of fraud I describe above if the voter claims he doesn't have a photo I'd.[/QUOTE]The member, whatever his number is, is just the latest political shill on the board. Should have seen this coming when suddenly he was planning a trip to mendoza. Just some 16 year old blogger for MSNBC. Disregard all his arguemnts and don't engage. He will dissappear once we stop engaging. His comments about wyoming and voter registration just serve to disclose him as a shill. Funny how wyoming is one of the riches states in the US, with argueably the best social support net, but is now the stupidest state in the US. Your point about rural living is spot on. Nobody lives way out in the boonies without personal transportation. Dumshits comment about taking the bus is hillarious! IALOTFLMAO. Would love for him to show me the bus coverage in rural wyoming. Too funny. Monger On TinyDude. Hope to meet ya this Friday at Jackson's. Toymann

ps. I expect more of these shills to come out of the woodwork the closer the election gets.

[QUOTE=Toymann; 426688]The member, whatever his number is, is just the latest political shill on the board. Should have seen this coming when suddenly he was planning a trip to mendoza. Just some 16 year old blogger for MSNBC. Disregard all his arguemnts and don't engage. He will dissappear once we stop engaging. His comments about wyoming and voter registration just serve to disclose him as a shill. Funny how wyoming is one of the riches states in the US, with argueably the best social support net, but is now the stupidest state in the US. Your point about rural living is spot on. Nobody lives way out in the boonies without personal transportation. Dumshits comment about taking the bus is hillarious! IALOTFLMAO. Would love for him to show me the bus coverage in rural wyoming. Too funny. Monger On TinyDude. Hope to meet ya this Friday at Jackson's. Toymann.

Ps. I expect more of these shills to come out of the woodwork the closer the election gets.[/QUOTE]

You're really stupid if you believe that the reason I came here was to debate politics with the likes of you (and frankly, I have no doubt that you actually are this dumb). Jackson can verify that I am registered to stay in one of his Apartments during October 7-15. I'll be in Mendoza from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6.

Don't you think that if I was looking for a PRODUCTIVE political debate, I'd be engaging in one that involves mostly American citizens on a forum mostly read by American citizens. And I suppose my extensive dialog the other day about changing money, and would Xoom work best, was all done just to make my cover look better. You really need to loosen your tin foil hat and let the blood circulate better to your brain, such that it is.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426690]You're really stupid if you believe that the reason I came here was to debate politics with the likes of you (and frankly, I have no doubt that you actually are this dumb). Jackson can verify that I am registered to stay in one of his Apartments during October 7-15. I'll be in Mendoza from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6.[/QUOTE]Thank God I will be fishing in corrienties during these dates and miss the opportunity to be enlightened by such a free thinker as yourself! You really need to be more selective about who you let stay at the clubhouse El Jeffe. Make sure he pays in advance. It wouldn't be the first time a wild-ass liberal slipped out without paying his bill. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

ps. you're engaging a resident US citizen, who pays his share of taxes, and lives in that idiot state you referenced in your last goofy arguement supporting undocumented voters in the US. Even in the socialist country I grew up in they have required ID for as long as I can remember. LMAO

[QUOTE=Toymann;426691]Thank God I will be fishing in corrienties during these dates and miss the opportunity to be enlightened by such a free thinker as yourself! You really need to be more selective about who you let stay at the clubhouse El Jeffe. Make sure he pays in advance. It wouldn't be the first time a wild-ass liberal slipped out without paying his bill. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]I can assure you, I make no attempt to socialize with rednecks in any case, so there was little chance I'd be meeting you. And Jackson obviously has more sense than you. As he's already got my Credit Card on file.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426681]What's nonsense about it? It's a simple fact that many folks in rural Texas and Wyoming live 100 or so miles from the nearest DMV. There sure as heck is NOT a DMV in every town with a grocery store. Many of them take a bus, or hitchhike into town to buy groceries. They sure don't drive if they don't own a car. Sorry to let the facts get in the way of your rant.[/quote]So let me see if I understand this: Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV to get an ID card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place?

It amuses me how liberals never see even the most obvious flaws in their own arguments. For them, it's all about emotion and never about logic.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426681]BTW, if you don't drive, and you don't have a bank account, you really don't need an ID to do much of anything else.[/QUOTE]Au contraire! They need an ID to exercise their right to vote.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426693]So let me see if I understand this: Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV to get an I'd card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place?

It amuses me how liberals never see even the most obvious flaws in their own arguments. For them, it's all about emotion and never about logic.

Au contraire! They need an I'd to exercise their right to vote.[/QUOTE]Well duh, if the polling place is 1 mile away, but the DMV is 100 miles away, yes, it stands to reason that the DMV would be MUCH harder for a non-driver to get to. It's really not that complex, actually.

And BTW, they might need an ID, but not a PHOTO ID. In any case, as I said, using fingerprints or any other mechanism that would allow doing it entirely by mail, would not be onerous at all, and I would have no issue with that system were it to be implemented. But of course, these ID schemes are SUPPOSED to be onerous to the folks that don't drive and don't have bank accounts.

BTW, if the Right wing position on this issue was about logic, rather than an attempt to disenfranchise the poor, how come they never seem to come up with a simple mechanism that would enable voter ID by mail, that doesn't impose a substantial burden on poor folks who don't drive? Talk about an obvious flaw in an argument - that right there is a pretty glaring one.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426692]I can assure you, I make no attempt to socialize with rednecks in any case.[/QUOTE]I have been called many things over the years. Now I can add REDNECK to the list! IALOTFLMAO. Please disregard my previous suggestion that you crawl back under your rock. Keep the hits coming. By all means. I really pity the poor fellas that will be staying with you at the clubhouse in a few weeks. You just sound like such a fun time. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. REDNECK Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;426697]I have been called many things over the years. Now I can add REDNECK to the list! IALOTFLMAO. Please disregard my previous suggestion that you crawl back under your rock. Keep the hits coming. By all means. I really pity the poor fellas that will be staying with you at the clubhouse in a few weeks. You just sound like such a fun time. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. REDNECK Toymann[/QUOTE]Well, perhaps the more appropriate term would have been "imbecile" rather than red neck. In any case, you are certainly someone who was stupid and / or loony enough to concoct a conspiracy theory that I was simply a shill who registered for this forum 5 years ago just so that I could come here to argue politics with a bunch of ex-pats, rather than someone who was actually traveling to Argentina in the next couple of weeks. This in spite of the fact that my prior interaction with you involved the best ways to exchange currency when I was in Mendoza, and how I would be traveling to Mendoza from Santiago, Chile. I mean, given that prior dialog, it's hard to choose whether you are more loony, or stupid.

It may shock you, but I'm not all that liberal politically. I already made it clear that I would support REASONABLE voter ID laws that actually allowed doing it by mail, and would not burden poor folks who can't drive. And the only reason that I'll be voting for Obama is that Romney has abandoned all of the reasonable positions that he held while he was Governor of Massachussetts. Romney had kept to his previous views, I'd have thought he was a pretty decent candidate (and I am disappointed by Obama. He's no Bill Clinton). But of the two choices we have running now, I see one who is mediocre in Obama, and one who would be much worse in Romney, because he's deeply committed to the same policies that ran the USA into the ground during the Bush Administration.

And unlike you, I can respect someone who disagrees with me, as long as they don't prove they are unworthy of respect, as you did with that nonsensical conspiracy theory that I was some sort of shill who had no reason to be in a forum about Argentina. But from this point on, I'll accomodate your preference, and call you an imbecile rather than a redneck - although, to be sure, it's certainly possible to be both at once, and I suspect that to be the case here.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426694]Well duh, if the polling place is 1 mile away, but the DMV is 100 miles away, yes, it stands to reason that the DMV would be MUCH harder for a non-driver to get to. It's really not that complex, actually.

And BTW, they might need an I'd, but not a PHOTO I'd. In any case, as I said, using fingerprints or any other mechanism that would allow doing it entirely by mail, would not be onerous at all, and I would have no issue with that system were it to be implemented. But of course, these I'd schemes are SUPPOSED to be onerous to the folks that don't drive and don't have bank accounts.

BTW, if the Right wing position on this issue was about logic, rather than an attempt to disenfranchise the poor, how come they never seem to come up with a simple mechanism that would enable voter I'd by mail, that doesn't impose a substantial burden on poor folks who don't drive? Talk about an obvious flaw in an argument. That right there is a pretty glaring one.[/QUOTE]Okay, let me rephrase it:

Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV that might be more than 1 mile away to get an ID card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place that might or might not be more than 1 mile away?

And where the fuck are these people who might be more than 100 miles away from a DMV actually living?

Please give me one example of a zip code more than 100 miles away from a DMV, because I couldn't find any such places myself.

If they're so fucking far away from civilization without any form of transportation, then how do they buy food?

For that matter, how fucking poor / dumb / stupid do you have to be to deliberately live 100+ miles from civilization with no form of transportation?

What do you believe is the percentage of people who live more than 100 miles from civilization and who do not own some form of transportation? .0000001%?

Showing identification to vote just makes sense, which is why the liberals can't understand it.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426699]Okay, let me rephrase it:

Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV that might be more than 1 mile away to get an I'd card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place that might or might not be more than 1 mile away?

And where the fuck are these people who might be more than 100 miles away from a DMV actually living?

Please give me one example of a zip code more than 100 miles away from a DMV, because I couldn't find any such places myself.

If they're so fucking far away from civilization without any form of transportation, then how do they buy food?

For that matter, how fucking poor / dumb / stupid do you have to be to deliberately live 100+ miles from civilization with no form of transportation?

What do you believe is the percentage of people who live more than 100 miles from civilization and who do not own some form of transportation? .0000001%

Showing identification to vote just makes sense, which is why the liberals can't understand it.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]For starters, I personally would never live in any state that is so undeveloped that the nearest DMV is 100 miles away, but it's a fact that places like this exist, in Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Alaska, and Oklahoma. These people may not CHOOSE to live there, but these locations are typically dirt cheap, and the poorest people might have no choice but to live there. And perhaps you might not realize this, but grocery stores and supermarkets can be found even not near any DMVs. I feel sorry for you if you've never lived anywhere that only had food markets located near the DMV, and nowhere else. BTW, if this were the case, the entire state of California would only have something on the order of 200 supermarkets to serve the entire state.

In any case, it's a FACT that this situation exists, and even if you believe someone needs to be stupid to live in such a place, that does not in any way justify disenfranchising them for the misfortune of their situations. And that's 100 miles. Lower the distance to 20 miles, and the same situation holds in almost every state in the country - and 20 miles is still a burden to folks who don't drive, and don't live near really good public transportation - heck, even in San Diego where I live, it would be a challenge to get to the DMV that's 8 miles from my house by public transit - I'd have to take a cab, and that would end up costing at least $40-50 round trip. And that's a real burden for folks that are poor and don't drive.

But that's simply a canard. These voter ID laws are all about making things difficult. Whereas, it would be trivially easy to make the ID process all doable by mail. But that has NEVER been offered as a mechanism in ANY of these voter I'd schemes, because they are not about making having a proper ID easy, rather, they are about making it HARD for poor people who don't drive. As soon as someone actually proposes a voter ID law that doesn't add substantial costs to poor folks who can't drive, by allowing them to do it by mail, I support it 100 percent. But it's very instructive that you have never suggested that this would be the correct way to implement voter ID in a manner that everyone COULD EASILY get one. That's really all that's needed. Make it easy for ANY registered voter to get an ID without requiring them to travel any significant distance, and I am then all in favor of it. But, it's quite obvious that this would defeat the REAL objective of these laws, which is to make it HARD, not easy, for poor folks to get one.

In any case, I SUPPORT any voter ID law that allows anyone who's a registered voter to do it entirely by mail at no cost. I wonder why the Conservatives on this very venue don't support making these IDs so easy for any legitimately registered voter to get by mail? It's because that would fail as a mechanism for disenfranchisement of the poor - which is the entire real goal of these laws.


BTW, Jackson, is there any way to turn off the auto-correcting software that converts ID to I'd all the time unless one goes back to edit it?

Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo ID is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426701]Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo I'd is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable - even a necessary - thing to ensure is a part of any voter ID law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426702]And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable. Even a necessary. Thing to ensure is a part of any voter I'd law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?[/QUOTE]Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

You now have your answer why I rent my own apartment and have never stayed in the clubhouse. With my luck, I'd be sharing the house with Esten, WT69 and the new "Member with the Mosetest", then to make matters worse SnakeBoy would get evicted from his apartment and share the sofa in Esten's room. I'm getting into a cold sweat just thinking about it! Monger on El Jeffe. Embecile and Redneck Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann; 426704]Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude! [/QUOTE]

Thankfully, you have other plans.


BTW, I am hardly a "new" member. My first post is dated from 2004, although my first significant postings in Jackson's Argentina forum occurred in late 2007, prior to my previous trip to Argentina in early 2008. But of course, facts are not your strong suit, obviously, Toyboy.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426701]Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo I'd is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;426706]Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens.[/QUOTE]It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo ID to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 426702]And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable. Even a necessary. Thing to ensure is a part of any voter I'd law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?[/QUOTE]A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Toymann; 426704]Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

You now have your answer why I rent my own apartment and have never stayed in the clubhouse. With my luck, I'd be sharing the house with Esten, WT69 and the new "Member with the Mosetest", then to make matters worse SnakeBoy would get evicted from his apartment and share the sofa in Esten's room. I'm getting into a cold sweat just thinking about it! Monger on El Jeffe. Embecile and Redneck Toymann[/QUOTE]For the record, I do not pick my friends or my guests based on their political perspectives.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426709]A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Simple. You take a fingerprint when the person votes (just like is done all around the world) and IF the vote is challenged under probable cause, you compare the finger print to the one on the voter registration records. Just like anything else, the presumption is of innocence, and if there is probable cause to challenge the legitimacy of the vote, the records exist to validate them. But there is not a any presumption of guilt. Just the way the rest of our legal system operates. The burden of proof here lies where it is supposed to, with the challenge to the legitimacy of the vote, NOT the voter.

That being said, fingerprints need not be used, you could also have the person submit their own photos, by mail with the application for the ID, and the photos could be taken anywhere at their personal convenience, just like is done with passport applications. The person who votes still needs to look like the person in the photos.

[QUOTE=Mpexy; 426708]It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo I'd to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.[/QUOTE]What exactly are you claiming I am making up in my post? There is nothing in the US Constitution that states a government issued identification card is necessary to utilize a citizen's right to vote and there is nothing in the constitution mandating acquisition of a federal identity document. The document the founding fathers authored prioritized states right for sure, but as I am sure you must know the original document has been amended twenty seven times. In fact, subsequent amendments have repeatedly rolled back the states' attempts to disenfranchise citizens and furthermore have expanded the vote to groups not authorized in the original document (see 15th. 17th. 19th. 24th, and 26th amendments, all of which EXPAND enfranchisement and / or strike down states' attempts to disenfranchise poor / minority groups).

[QUOTE=Jackson; 426709]A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Forced fingerprinting as a prerequisite to vote would be unconstitutional as US citizens cannot be forced to succumb to fingerprinting unless they are placed under arrest.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;426705]Thankfully, you have other plans. BTW, I am hardly a "new" member. My first post is dated from 2004, although my first significant postings in Jackson's Argentina forum occurred in late 2007, prior to my previous trip to Argentina in early 2008. But of course, facts are not your strong suit, obviously, Toyboy.[/QUOTE]You are such a self proclaimed rock star. Two trips so far (counting the one you have yet to take). You go boy. Looking forward to your chica posts. Now crawl back under your rock. Monger On All but Member Idiot. Toymann

[QUOTE=Mpexy; 426708]It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo I'd to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.[/QUOTE]

The crazy wild-ass liberals never let the facts get in the way. First beer on me later this week dude. You around? Monger on Dude. Toymann