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.

Constructive checks and balances would be a welcome development at this point. Republicans have opposed Obamacare for years now, and have repealed it multiple times in a yearly basis as a token to their constituents.

But now they actually have power they don't have an actual plan? They've had how many years to actually say "this is what sucks and this is how we will fix it". They could have introduced actual bills with actual fixes for all years.

 d-usa wrote:
Constructive checks and balances would be a welcome development at this point. Republicans have opposed Obamacare for years now, and have repealed it multiple times in a yearly basis as a token to their constituents.

But now they actually have power they don't have an actual plan? They've had how many years to actually say "this is what sucks and this is how we will fix it". They could have introduced actual bills with actual fixes for all years.

They have plans... they're too chicken gak to push it through now.

If they don't repeal it, they'll fething lose the Senate AND the House in two years.

 d-usa wrote:
Constructive checks and balances would be a welcome development at this point. Republicans have opposed Obamacare for years now, and have repealed it multiple times in a yearly basis as a token to their constituents.

But now they actually have power they don't have an actual plan? They've had how many years to actually say "this is what sucks and this is how we will fix it". They could have introduced actual bills with actual fixes for all years.

It's the wonders of the Republican party.

They lose power to the Democrats because their voter base becomes disillusioned with how little the Republicans fix, the Democrats fix a lot of their messes...all the while the Republicans are blaring about the Democrats invading privacy, etc etc.

After the Democrats fix their messes, the Republicans then run a vitriol filled campaign that gets the Democrats out and the whole cycle begins anew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Constructive checks and balances would be a welcome development at this point. Republicans have opposed Obamacare for years now, and have repealed it multiple times in a yearly basis as a token to their constituents.

But now they actually have power they don't have an actual plan? They've had how many years to actually say "this is what sucks and this is how we will fix it". They could have introduced actual bills with actual fixes for all years.

They have plans... they're too chicken gak to push it through now.

If they don't repeal it, they'll fething lose the Senate AND the House in two years.

Oh please. We all know that won't happen, because the whole two years they'll be blaming the Democrats for obstructing it.

Then when their dumpsterfire of a plan goes into effect and the Republican voter base is incensed, they'll find something new to blame on the Democrats and run that as the hot button issue.


For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

Man you're on a roll now... switch to decafe man.

Do you like the idea of non-anonymous voting? Because, that's what it's going to take to enforce something like this.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

Man you're on a roll now... switch to decafe man.

Do you like the idea of non-anonymous voting? Because, that's what it's going to take to enforce something like this.

No, it really wouldn't. A simple questionnaire from the state Board of Elections is all it would take.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

Man you're on a roll now... switch to decafe man.

Do you like the idea of non-anonymous voting? Because, that's what it's going to take to enforce something like this.

No, it really wouldn't. A simple questionnaire from the state Board of Elections is all it would take.

Not really. This is an explicit example of disenfranchising someone by viewpoint discrimination.

Also a massive slippery slope.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's pretty easy to figure out "what I mean

ANYONE who has defended the garbage that the Republican led budget shenanigans, the constant addition of riders onto bills that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, the constant demonizing of the Left's protests while supporting crap like Kim Davis and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge takeover.

You have very definitely confused me for someone else, or for a figment of your imagination. I have never defended Kim Davis or the Oregon militia. I have only criticized the left's protests insofaras they are antithetical to the liberal principle of free speech, and insofaras they have used violence.

Anyone who can constantly repeat "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" while stalling the Zadrogo Bill needs to be removed from office immediately.
Anyone who can constantly talk about "respecting the troops" while letting the VA get to the sorry state it was?
Removed from office immediately.

Fair enough. I for one believe that the outcome of free and fair elections should be respected, even if I disagree with the individual who was elected.

I will say again, if there is concern about executive overreach, than congress can pass laws against it, or take the executive to court.

How are felons prevented from voting?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are felons prevented from voting?

In some states, yes.

Also, ( I don't know if it's all states) you can petition to get it reinstated.

FWIW: I despise this idea. I'm okay with striping your right to vote WHILE serving your sentence (in jail or probation), but once you paid your dues, that should automatically snap in place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are felons prevented from voting?

Their voting rights are stripped from them while in jail and not given back after they serve time. Some states do give them their rights back, but they are in the vast minority.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

Man you're on a roll now... switch to decafe man.

Do you like the idea of non-anonymous voting? Because, that's what it's going to take to enforce something like this.

No, it really wouldn't. A simple questionnaire from the state Board of Elections is all it would take.

Not really. This is an explicit example of disenfranchising someone by viewpoint discrimination.

Also a massive slippery slope.

You've had absolutely no problem with any other attempts at voter disenfranchisement. Just when it will affect your side it seems.

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

In other words, if you are an uninformed voter who made literally zero attempt to inform yourself, you lose your right to vote.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are felons prevented from voting?

In some states, yes.

Also, ( I don't know if it's all states) you can petition to get it reinstated.

FWIW: I despise this idea. I'm okay with striping your right to vote WHILE serving your sentence (in jail or probation), but once you paid your dues, that should automatically snap in place.

agreed, once you've done your time, you've paid your dues, and not allowing people to vote after conviction takes away incentive to reinvest in a new life and keep clean, there's less to lose by reoffending. Same goes for other post-release restrictions in most cases (with some exceptions).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are felons prevented from voting?

Their voting rights are stripped from them while in jail and not given back after they serve time. Some states do give them their rights back, but they are in the vast minority.

What I mean is, if I am a felon and my voting rights have been stripped, how do the authorities check I am a felon and cannot ally for voting registration?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

In other words, if you are an uninformed voter who made literally zero attempt to inform yourself, you lose your right to vote.

it is not a requirement to be informed nor thoughtful to vote. Sad as that may be, that is not something that could ever be enforceable.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

In other words, if you are an uninformed voter who made literally zero attempt to inform yourself, you lose your right to vote.

Actually, you don't. Maybe in your personal utopia you do, but not in the United States of America.

This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Unfortunately, certain groups have vilified most of the information providers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Yep. People should try and persuade each other that their cause is correct in the free market of ideas.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And now Trump, because he can't admit that he's a narcissistic piece of work, is doubling down on attacking Sweden. My respect for people who voted this joke into the White House is rapidly diminishing by the minute.

It was *this* story on FNC that he may have seen... a documentary, here's a snippet:



Here's a source from that story:
https://de.gatestoneinstitute.org/5223/schweden-vergewaltigung


So... that's where he's getting it from...

I know, I've already posted this:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Turns out Trump based his comments about Sweden on a "documentary" (and I use that word quite wrongly) broadcast by Fox News.

Lügenpresse indeed...

on the subject. FWIW the two Swedish Police officers featured in the "documentary" (again, using that word in a completely erroneous manner) think that Horowitz is "a madman".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

In other words, if you are an uninformed voter who made literally zero attempt to inform yourself, you lose your right to vote.

You don't have to be an "informed" voter to have the right to vote. Your voting rights aren't grounded in any definition of being informed of anything at all. Advocating for the government to strip voting rights from people for not voting in a manner you deem appropriate is an oppressive intrusion on others that is a societal injustice. The only times you should lose your right to vote is if you renounce your US citizenship and you should temporarily lose it for the length of your incarceration if you're found guilty of a crime that results in a prison sentence. Other than that everyone should remain free to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they wish.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

Man you're on a roll now... switch to decafe man.

Do you like the idea of non-anonymous voting? Because, that's what it's going to take to enforce something like this.

No, it really wouldn't. A simple questionnaire from the state Board of Elections is all it would take.

Not really. This is an explicit example of disenfranchising someone by viewpoint discrimination.

Also a massive slippery slope.

You've had absolutely no problem with any other attempts at voter disenfranchisement. Just when it will affect your side it seems.

Cry me a river... changing the rules on what you need to do to vote isn't disenfranchisement.

Also, if you can't see how something like this is textbook 'Slippery Slope™'... I mean, what's to stop a Board of Elections from asking:

"Did you have any income tax liabilities to the Federal/State?"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

In other words, if you are an uninformed voter who made literally zero attempt to inform yourself, you lose your right to vote.

You are subscribing to viewpoint discrimination... seriously, how are you not seeing this?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are felons prevented from voting?

Their voting rights are stripped from them while in jail and not given back after they serve time. Some states do give them their rights back, but they are in the vast minority.

What I mean is, if I am a felon and my voting rights have been stripped, how do the authorities check I am a felon and cannot ally for voting registration?

The state removes you from the voting rolls when they process your paperwork that creates your criminal record. Only a few states prohibit felons from regaining the right to vote after serving their sentence.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
For what it's worth, anyone who voted for a Republican on the basis of "Repeal Obamacare" and doesn't know that they're getting their current insurance only because of the Affordable Care Act(read: "Obamacare") should have their voting rights stripped from them.

In other words, if you don't vote how I want you to, I'm willing to strip you of your rights as a US citizen.

In other words, if you are an uninformed voter who made literally zero attempt to inform yourself, you lose your right to vote.

You don't have to be an "informed" voter to have the right to vote. Your voting rights aren't grounded in any definition of being informed of anything at all. Advocating for the government to strip voting rights from people for not voting in a manner you deem appropriate is an oppressive intrusion on others that is a societal injustice. The only times you should lose your right to vote is if you renounce your US citizenship and you should temporarily lose it for the length of your incarceration if you're found guilty of a crime that results in a prison sentence. Other than that everyone should remain free to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they wish.

Why are you oppressing incarcerated people's right to vote? It's not much of a democracy if the state can decide you don't get to vote anymore, is it?

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Yep. People should try and persuade each other that their cause is correct in the free market of ideas.

That can't happen when one side is convinced that someone is a "Secret Muslim!1!!".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Yep. People should try and persuade each other that their cause is correct in the free market of ideas.

That can't happen when one side is convinced that someone is a "Secret Muslim!1!!".

I suppose that means that the other side has not done an adequate job of convincing their detractors that they're wrong?? To be fair, I don't think that "Obama is a secret Muslim" thing is a widespread belief. I live in redneck country, deep Trump territory, and the only place I've ever heard this is from wackaloons on TV.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Yep. People should try and persuade each other that their cause is correct in the free market of ideas.

That can't happen when one side is convinced that someone is a "Secret Muslim!1!!".

Can any policy disagreement with Obama be legit?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why democracy is the worst system of government that has been tried except for all the others, which were worse.

I suppose the answer is that everyone has to try to inform the uninformed voters, and hopefully they might open their minds to new information.

Yep. People should try and persuade each other that their cause is correct in the free market of ideas.

That can't happen when one side is convinced that someone is a "Secret Muslim!1!!".

Can any policy disagreement with Obama be legit?

It certainly can if you offer up factual evidence to support why you disagree with it.