Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Decidedly and unfortunately not on fire? Okay that isn't a single word but still.

Melissia wrote:Decidedly and unfortunately not on fire? Okay that isn't a single word but still.

It is if you hyphenate it...

I'm not confrontational I'm a social butterfly.

Anyway, Im off to watch York v Boro... you NEED to be drunk to enjoy that!

AustonT wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Oh no. The Democrats are trying to stop a predominantly conservative demographic from voting! Its not like the Republicans would ever do such a thing! *looks at immigration reform*

Business as usual. Move along.

One group has the right to vote, the other does not.
You are as hyperbolic and misleading as the title of this thread.

Read the whole thread next time cause I totally clarified that one (which really shouldn't need clarification cause its kind of obvious).

Republicans block immigration reform because in all likely hood legalized immigrants would vote Dem not Rep.

Who has the right to vote no has no baring on a blanket statement that only says that both parties like to block each other from getting votes.

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said everyone involved was completely honest. At the very least this is a legitimate operation that some dishonest people have decided the use to swing things their way. Can't always be said of for the other side.

The lawsuit in question is also a legitimate challenge, even if you don't agree with the premise legal procedure is being followed. The attempts by some conservatives to pass voter ID requirements are also legitimate for the same reason. The point I was trying make vis a vis Phanatik's statement is that is itself hypocritical consider the legitimate tactics employed by one side objectionable, while engaging in similar tactics in favor of the side you support; at least per the standard of hypocrisy he seemed to be using.

Personally I find voter suppression pretty objectionable, and I wish no one engaged in it.

Same. Texas and many other states engage in it in a more subtle form via gerrymandering, and I really wish we could get rid of gerrymandering and instead have electorates divided up amongst statistical, non-partisan grounds.

Mel I have no idea what this picture is supposed to mean; should I?

dogma wrote:I like how the deliberately confrontational person ignores all other confrontational people.

There's a word for that.

you have my attention]

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Spoiler:

Mel I have no idea what this picture is supposed to mean; should I?

It one of the most ludicrous voting districts created in recent gerrymandering attempts. Afraid that hispanics would vote democrat, the Republican party attempted to gather as much of the hispanic population in one dictrict as they could so as to limit their effect on Texas government.

That long orange pink thing was ONE voting district?

It's technically two voting districts. Texas won some new districts because of growing population at the new census, remember? The orange one was newly created for the purpose of suppressing hispanic votes while the other ones changed size for the same purpose.

Little early for Valentine Mel?...late?....

Uh... wait, what?

Showing us TX has a heart? (redline district)

Awww, its so cute.

purplefood wrote:This is so trivial it's not even worth this thread...
3 days? If they took it away who cares? If they leave it who cares?
It's only 3 days...

Pretty much - it's a matter of "this isn't equal treatment! rabblerabblerabble" versus "the military deserves this! rabblerabblerabble"
Politics 101

I couldn't read more the first page.

Solution: Destroy both parties.

I am just tired if 2 year election periods. As soon as November is over we will already start talking about who will run in the mid-term elections in 2014, what the impact will be, rabble rabble rabble. It never fething ends.

Screw the primaries. Just make it a 3 month election period with instant runoff voting. Everybody gets to be on the ballot.

I'm not even allowed to vote in the primaries as an independent, why should my taxes pay for them.

From what i hear, its his campaign, and obama doesnt support
also D-USA i agree, sometimes i wish we where a benevolent dictatorship

hotsauceman1 wrote:also D-USA i agree, sometimes i wish we where a benevolent dictatorship

I don't think he was calling for a dictatorship, just doing away with primaries and making terms longer so that the deluge of campaigning can slow to a trickle.

Ahtman wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:also D-USA i agree, sometimes i wish we where a benevolent dictatorship

I don't think he was calling for a dictatorship, just doing away with primaries and making terms longer so that the deluge of campaigning can slow to a trickle.

I do support term limits.

Except for POTUS. I think POTUS should be one 6 year term. If Senators can serve for 6 then why not POTUS. Stops all that wishy washy stuff like telling Russia "I can do more in my 2nd term" because you constantly have to think about getting reelected. 6 years gives you more time to really prove that your plans are working (if they are going to work) and by not facing a 2nd term you don't have to worry about making decisions that are unpopular. I think that there are decisions that could be made as POTUS that would piss off everybody but that would also really benefit the country. But nobody wants to do them because "I won't get reelected". Sometimes you need tough love, and a single 6 year term might help in that.

This is going to get ugly

Grey Templar wrote:How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

The reason was that if immigration reform took place, those illegal immigrants would become legal immigrants, and possibly citizens. Who then would most likely vote against the people that didn't want them to be citizens (ie Republicans).

As far as ID goes, I'm opposed. "You're poor so you can't vote" went out with poll taxes.


Edit: On district shenanigans: the real reason they redistrict anything is to limit the number of a party in a district. Usually this is so that members of the other party can't even get on the ballot, such as Pennsylvania, which requires a certain number of members of your party in a district sign a petition for you to run. If there are not that many, well, too bad.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

The reason was that if immigration reform took place, those illegal immigrants would become legal immigrants, and possibly citizens. Who then would most likely vote against the people that didn't want them to be citizens (ie Republicans).

As far as ID goes, I'm opposed. "You're poor so you can't vote" went out with poll taxes.


Edit: On district shenanigans: the real reason they redistrict anything is to limit the number of a party in a district. Usually this is so that members of the other party can't even get on the ballot, such as Pennsylvania, which requires a certain number of members of your party in a district sign a petition for you to run. If there are not that many, well, too bad.

Rediclous, everyone can get ID of some kind. There are plenty of free IDs out there, and those that arn't are very cheap.

The idea that this is a poll tax is silly. Its requiring you to provide something you really should already have.

Grey Templar wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

The reason was that if immigration reform took place, those illegal immigrants would become legal immigrants, and possibly citizens. Who then would most likely vote against the people that didn't want them to be citizens (ie Republicans).

As far as ID goes, I'm opposed. "You're poor so you can't vote" went out with poll taxes.


Edit: On district shenanigans: the real reason they redistrict anything is to limit the number of a party in a district. Usually this is so that members of the other party can't even get on the ballot, such as Pennsylvania, which requires a certain number of members of your party in a district sign a petition for you to run. If there are not that many, well, too bad.

Rediclous, everyone can get ID of some kind. There are plenty of free IDs out there, and those that arn't are very cheap.

The idea that this is a poll tax is silly. Its requiring you to provide something you really should already have.

To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

AustonT wrote:To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

The problem is not just that they cost, but that you have to be able to get to where they are issued. While I'm sure that someone will claim everyone can get a ride to wherever, whenver, the truth is very different in poor rural areas.

BaronIveagh wrote:

AustonT wrote:To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

The problem is not just that they cost, but that you have to be able to get to where they are issued. While I'm sure that someone will claim everyone can get a ride to wherever, whenver, the truth is very different in poor rural areas.

Some states do have free IDs. Fraz has pointed out that TX is apparently one.

Of course, when it is pointed out to supporters of voter ID laws that this is a cost that must then be borne by the taxpayers, they somehow don't object to that. Apparently because they are more terrified of a miniscule number of fraudulent voters (of the wrong color or social class) than they are opposed to higher taxes.

BaronIveagh wrote:

AustonT wrote:To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

The problem is not just that they cost, but that you have to be able to get to where they are issued. While I'm sure that someone will claim everyone can get a ride to wherever, whenver, the truth is very different in poor rural areas.

Poppycock.

Not at all. A number of states do have free IDs, but you're still putting an additional hurdle/barrier in front of legitmate voters' ability to exercise their right to vote.

AustonT wrote:
Poppycock.

Auston, if you're willing to stop by and give me a ride to the nearest location that currently issues one, I'll change my mind. It's only 150 miles from here.

Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

d-usa wrote:Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

How pray tell do soldiers whose state of residence is OK vote?

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

How pray tell do soldiers whose state of residence is OK vote?

Soldiers have ID.