joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm getting scolded by a liberal on "unnecessary costs?" Holy shit. Quick question. How much is this going to cost after the first couple years? Essentially nothing. Big up front costs to get ID's to those who do not currently have them that wants one.
Yes, because the Affordable Care Act is 'deficit neutral'. You cant quite claim that with the 'Iraq War' and those 'massive stockpiles of WMDs' that were never found. Because the information it was all 'based on', was a lie crafted by the administration that was put in power. And who was the George W. Bush Administration put in power by? The same guys that bashed the American Reovery and Reinvestment Act as being a 'spending bill' that would do nothing to help American during a free fall of the economy. Notice we arent in a depression right now? Seems that 'Stimulus Bill' actually did what it was set up to do. In fact, if we had placed another $500-900 Billion on it, the recession would more likely be over by this point. Trust me, DS, its a very complex concept that most of your fellow conservatives wouldn't be able to understand let alone follow along. And it is best explained in another thread.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Requiring voter ID would increase costs. Maybe not in any scale compared to the Iraq War under the most recent Bush in office. Yeah, $4 Trillion paid with borrowed funds is pretty tough to beat. I'm so glad those 'fiscal conservatives' are 'on top' of issues like that, and 'holding' their elected officals fully 'accountable and responsible' to their words and actions. Which is to say....laughable! But there are costs. You have to make sure the person getting the ID is in fact the person in question. That costs money. If their information is hard to obtain that often costs....MORE...money. Likewise, people lose their license for all sorts of reasons: thief, laundry machine, fire, dog ate it, etc. If any of these took place the day before or the day of the election, should that prevent a citizen from exercising their civil duty to vote? If you say 'no', then why have a photo ID to being with? Which is why you have to say 'yes', because its such a 'well known fact' that the voting booths are cramped with people and we reach near 100% levels of voting in all 46 states, 4 commonwealths and 6 territories, right? How many registered voted actially *DID* vote in the 2008 election?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/Table%2002-1.xls
2008
18+ population: 225.5M
18+ Citizen population: 206.1M (eligible voters)
18+ Registered Voters: 146.3M (71% of eligible voters)
18+ Voters: 131.144M (63.6% of eligible voters; 89.6% registered voters)
29% of eligible voters don't register. 29% of eligible voters aren't able to vote because they aren't registered to vote. I think it just might be safe to assume that the 29% of eligible voters who haven't even registered aren't registered because they can't afford an ID.
How exactly would a Voter ID law help those numbers increase for 'registered voters that did vote'? As most states of the Union in 2008 did not have any sort of voter ID law in effect. Or would the Voter ID law simply create 'one more excuse' for possible voters from simply not showing up to vote? Shouldn't we as citizens be trying to devise ways to encourage more active voter turnout, regardless of who they vote in favor of?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Brennan Center has been quoted as stating that 11% of eligible voters would be affected. 11% of ELIGIBLE voters. As I have shown previously, "eligible" voters does not necessarily equate well to "registered" voters. Additionally, registration doesn't even guarantee a person is going to actually vote to begin with.
And did they mention how many voters that would actually be in real numbers? You can find the information HERE!. In 2010, there were 234,564,000 persons of voting age. 11% of that would be 25,802,040. So, your willing to pay the costs for nearly 26 million Americans to protect you from the fear of something that takes place less than 0.0001% of the time; but NOT in favor of allowing 30 million Americans with pre-existing conditions obtaining health coverage because the Affordable Care Act is not to the GOP's liking? Yeah, makes 'perfect' sense to me.....
25.8M won't get an ID. How 'bout we start out with that? And, yes. I'm willing to authorize my representatives to spend the money to make sure everyone who wants an ID for voting purposes, gets an ID for free. It won't cost that much every year, just the first couple as people who want to vote (which won't be everyone) get their ID's.
So, you would deny US Citizens the right to vote, as its laid out in the US Constitution on the grounds that you believe voter fraud is so widely rampant that extreme measures must be taken? In otherwords, you would violate the US Consitution because it suited your paranoia and not based on any actual, reasonable and well documented findings? That is where your having the biggest problem in your arguement; 4th amendment considerations asside. If voter fraud was 5-10% of voting booth totals, yeah, you could make a reasonable arguement for the introduction of a Voter ID. But we dont see thousand upon thousands of individuals voting fraudently, now do we?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Have you forgotten that it was pointed out that for the '10 GA elections, minority turnout was significantly higher than in '06 , even though a voter ID law was passed in between?
Your using Georgia, a state that routinely undermines non-whites, to defend this position? How many more people have voted, thanks directly to the voter ID law in effect in that state? How do you measure someone deciding to vote due to the idea that everyone voting, needed to show their ID BEFORE the vote? Again, this is fearmongering and ignorance at its finest display of GOP 'wisdom and education'.
The point is, that minority voting increased after voter ID laws went into effect. I'm not saying that they voted because an ID was required (nice attempt to twist my intent, btw), but there were more minority voters even though a voter ID law had been passed (which is hailed as a deterrent to minority voters). It could actually turn out that the fearmongering is that it is going to be a deterrent to minority voters. And, what does it matter if GA undermines non-whites? That sure strikes me as an attempt to divert attention away from facts.
Actually that is your arguement that you must convince others on. That the Voter ID law was the primary reason why people voted in greater numbers, trumping all other possible reasons. Maybe those minority groups liked Sen. Obama more than Sen. McCain and made it a point to not only vote, but get others to vote with them! Maybe its a strange anomaly that will not repeat itself for a long while. Maybe at the time of the vote, more minorities were in that state than in previous elections. The point is, you have to bring the burden of proof to the forefront that shows the voter ID law was the major reason for the higher voter turn out, against all other possible conditions. And that is not easy for a political analyist to obtain let alone you or me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Any attempt by the Left to discredit an action based on cost when there is already a budget deficit is hypocrisy almost every single time. The only real times a Democrat will be against an action that increases costs in times of deficits, is when it's not one of their actions.
Could you give me the exact coordinates on all those WMD's we found in Iraq (down to the mili-second)? You know, the ones we were told by Republicans (whom conservatives voted for) existed "...in massive stockpiles...."? You know, the war we 'paid' $4 Trillion on (with borrowed funds), lost 4000+ US Soldiers, have another 30,000+ with long term injuries/illnesses, demolished our credibility with regards to being against torture, and allowing about 100,000 civilians to be put to the sword (if international and organizations are to be believed)? And you want to argue costs?
So, because the Republicans "lied," voter ID laws are bad? Huh?
If Republicans are willing to lie BIG on going to war with another nation, what WOULDN'T they NOT lie on? Its one thing to lie about having 'sexual relations' with another women when your married. Its quite a bit different when your lie results in thousands of dead US Soldiers, ten times that amount in wounded soldiers, a hundred times that in civilians, costs the nation muliple trillions of dollars in borrowed money, and undermines our previously held stance that 'torture' is NEVER justified. Are you seriously having trouble understanding the difference between the two concepts?
The Voter ID laws are bad, not because Republicans lie on minor and apparently, major things. Its bad because it violates the US Consitution's 4th Amendment. Why should a person have to give up their privacy and papers (i.e. their rights) to a goverment to prevent something that doesnt even happen 1% of the time in....ANY....US state, commonwealth or territory? What's the next logical step?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Yes, I admit, the cost for voter IDs in all locations is a drop in the ocean (not a bucket...), compared to that 'fiscal conservative initiatives' so happily given to us by conservatives. And this all took place DURING a FEDERAL DEFICIT given to us by.....oh yes.....those 'fiscal conservatives' whom kept shouting how Democrats are 'Tax and Spend' and that they are the 'defenders' of America's freedoms and wallet. Tell you what, DS, you conservatives pay for the whole Iraq/Afghanistan war, and all the bills charged on the USA's credit card by Bush for those eight years, and us liberals' will pay for your voter ID costs for the next ten years.....deal?
You are making yet another incorrect assumption that I support the GOP's spending record. I do not. I was appalled at the spending of Bush & Co. You can be an ideologue stooge if you want. I refuse to do that. You do realize that the Democrats could have stopped funding the Iraq war after they took over in '07, right? But, they didn't truly care about the deficits. They just wanted to use them against the Republicans. They even talked about what they would have spent the money on instead of the wars. How that wouldn't run the same deficits, I don't know.
Did you vote for Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain in 2008? If you voted for Mr. McCain you basically said 'your ok with EVERYTHING done under the Bush Administration'. Because it was looking like Mr. McCain would have kept us in both countries for another four years without anything changing. In effect, adding MORE money onto the deficit and debt while those soldiers looked in vain for a guy who was hanging out in neighboring Pakistan!
In 2006, Republicans had run a very successful propaganda war in to the minds of Americans by associating any sort of 'draw down' or 'pull out' of US Troops as being a sign of surrender to the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. That WAS the mentality in this country at that time. To oppose the President was seen as un-American, even if the protest was legitimate. Back in that time, not many people were even aware of the full damage to the nation's economy due to the meddlings and undermines of the GOP for the first siex years (which would lead to the economy failing in the summer of 2007).
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How do we protect a Citizen's right to vote if we can't verify that a prospective voter is a Citizen? By what means is that even possible?
The person states who they are and where they live (it really is that simple). That information should already be on the list at the voting station (along with what party if any, they are registered too). It is up to other citizens to not only state the person in question is not eligible to vote, but show valid evidence of such. At that point, the voting station police officers (which is standard for most states) become involved and check the information by having the person in question show ID. If the person can not show ID, they are given an 'absentee ballot' while their information is validated and checked. That is actually how the founding fathers intented this to work with consideration of the citizen's 4th amendment right in mind.
|
RE: photo id required - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread