FTW!! :smt023 awesome, it takes some life experience in order to have this insight or to even see what you mean.
The right relies too much on facts? I need to go double check that..but if that's what it said then that's a lie in and of itself. Oh, and btw, "cutting" funding for hungry babies is the same as NOT supporting it. ESPECIALLY when the "cutting" is being done in an effort to keep those who couldn't possibly need those programs on unequal footing with those who do.
I fully understand that many people around this country have lead a far more difficult life than I have. And many people are skeptical about the political system...poor and rich. I've seen many people in my family struggle and go through difficult times, but I've also seen them work harder and be active to make their future better. Being inactive is not the solution despite the hardships they have gone through in their lives. So leaving aside the philosophical argument. My point is that having a system in place to prevent fraud is not a bad idea. The idea that we wave rules for a certain group of people so that they don't feel like the game is rigged takes away from creating a "fair and balanced" system. I would agree that we could take measures like including mail in ballots for people in rural areas. But I don't think showing ID is a solution to cut down on voter fraud; however small.
How is that possible when: 1. They support creationism/intelligent design in the science classrooms? That's just pseudoscience making its way into science rooms and basically diminishing the importance of it. All at the same poking imaginary holes in the theory of evolution. 2. They deny global warming, contrary to the facts brought out to support the claims. 3. Make asinine comments like "women can 'stop' or reject the baby from being form after a legitimate rape" 4. Still considers homosexuality and gay marriage to cause natural disasters and problems in this country. Basically, the right-wing are anything but fact-based individuals when they are anti-reason, anti-logic, anti-science, and above all anti-realism.
Cutting funding is not the same as not supporting it. Cuts have to be made when the financial restraints call for it. When schools run out of money, they start cutting certain sports programs and extra-curricular activities. Does that mean they don't support them? No. It means they can't afford them. Democrats and Republicans can agree that the programs setup are inherently good. The argument is over how to pay for them. Democrats refuse to make any cuts, so be prepared to continue down this path of no jobs and mounting debt. And the Republicans are not getting rid of it completely. Under Paul Ryan's plan, SNAP benefits would have to be cut by about $22 to $27 per person per month. That means they would continue to receive 86% of their current monthly benefits.
There are quite a few of us posters here who come from poor backgrounds and have gone on to make something of ourselves, so our empathy and understanding of what most honest poor people go through comes from first hand experience for the most part. That does not mean we excuse inactivity in any form BUT we do fully understand the whys and hows that lead to those choosing inactivity. It not a simple thing as you seem to think it is to become involved in the political process in order to effect change. That's the point that seems to be the disconnect here in this discussion.
I never said the act of "philosophically" changing your perspective on politics to become involved in the election process is a simple thing. I said everyone should be involved in the election process and that requiring an ID is a step in the right direction to prevent any fraud. But I think we need to agree that when you have 20% voter turnout in some areas, there is a whole lot of laziness going on as well. Not everyone is having this big internal battle based on life experiences. For many people, they just don't want to go to the DMV or they don't want to go vote because American Idol is on.
What does laziness on the part of some people have to do with attempts at making it harder to vote for those who actually make an honest effort to participate and vote?? Why do you keep bringing up fraud & hypothetical scenarios? There is no mass fraud going on.
I don't see a problem with it because we force people to show ID for a million other things on a daily basis. Like I said, if Obama came out and said ID's are required I would have no issue with it. If people are making an honest attempt to vote then they can get an ID and vote. If you want to drive bad enough...you'll get a license and drive. If you want to shoot a gun...you'll get a license and shoot. But we don't need that to elect our PRESIDENT???
YES there IS! Didn't you get the memo? It was penned by a Beck intern. Fraud by all the lazy poor people who don't vote. They collect welfare instead. Because they are lazy. Lazy, fraudulent pricks.
Everyone gets that you personally see no problem with showing ID to vote. You've made that very clear. But there is NO across the board national/federal law requiring photo ID to vote. Why are you pumping this up as if there is or should be? Again, there is no mass voter fraud going on to what so ever to warrant it. :shock:
That's fine. My argument is that shouldn't we try to stop any voter fraud; however small? I made the analogy of selling alcohol to underage kids to help prove that point. If the number of DUI related deaths was small, does it make it insignificant?
*Sigh* Sir. You make it hard to have an honest discussion when you chose to deal in what ifs rather than what is. There are no instances of mass voter fraud currently taking place. There have not been any worries about voter fraud in past elections, so why now worry about it in this election, no matter how small the number, even if there are any instances of it occurring? When voter fraud legitimately becomes a factor in swaying the outcomes of elections, then by all means let's do all that we can to prevent it. Until then I'm out of this discussion. :smt006
Basically. Unsure if he bothered to read my post. But I suppose selective reading rears it's ugly head.
I find it questionable on the reason for Voter ID. It is used to stope minorites from voting and the examples of other things to use ID,voting is not one of them. It is a right fought for many years after slavery. Anyone who uses the example of using ID to vote is wrong period. When the GOP was in control in the 80's where were they? Also during the GOP primaries and caucuses of this year the party did not require their faithful to use ID's. But now since Obama is elected and going to be re-elected those voter supression laws grown like weeds. I live in NC and the GOP speaker promised Voter ID when the Republican gov is elected. There will be a big fight if that joker tries it again.
Until underage drinking starts taking more lives, then by all means let's do all that we can to prevent it. :smt017 We just fundamentally disagree on the premise. If you have instances of fraud, shouldn't you try to rid your system of fraud? Pretend we're not talking about the election. If you agree with the premise that some cheating is okay until its a large number, then we just don't agree.
The reason for Voter ID is to stop fraud; even if it's not widespread. It's not to stop minorities from voting. It doesn't say "black and poor people show ID's...everyone else is good".
If less than 1/1000 of one percent of teens drank underage, NO ONE would ever card them. Just a really weak analogy. And since when are teen accidents all the result of underage drinking?? You're making bad assumptions that aren't supported by the facts. Elections aren't being 'stolen' because hundreds of thousands, or even hundreds, of ineligible voters are illegally voting. What the GOP is doing is the equivalent of surrounding my house with FD hook and ladder trucks 24/7 because I burned my dinner pasta last night.