Democrats lose the 2008 election... - Page 8 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Democrats lose the 2008 election...

...

Page 8 of 9

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Page 8 of 9

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

04-30-2008 , 06:31 PM

#176

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

The very, very low level of voter fraud we have now proves this assertion to be false and nothing but FUD.

Right now, we have voter registration. You fill out the form, mail it in, and get approved to vote. What's so bad about this? It currently is sufficient to keep voter fraud below the noise floor associated with election official error.

How can this process not disenfranchise people AT LEAST as much as requiring showing an ID would?

04-30-2008 , 06:48 PM

#177

ConstantineX

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,544

I can't believe this is actually argued. Thank god for this decision. If you don't have the tenacity to obtain an ID card, you have forfeited the responsibility of a citizen. We used to believe in something called civil virtue in America.

IMO the voter ID issue is something disgusting used by machine Democrats to promote illegal immigrant fraud.

05-01-2008 , 12:47 AM

#178

cokehead

grinder

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 501

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineX

Yes, bring on Big Brother! Require ID for all citizens! Lets start requiring ID for all rights! Want to walk down the street? Must show government issued ID! That is true civil virtue!

05-01-2008 , 12:52 AM

#179

cokehead

grinder

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 501

Quote:

Originally Posted by natedogg

The point is that all power in this country is in the hands of the voters, and I'd prefer it if those using that power over me were actually legit. It's really not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

natedogg

I'd prefer that those voters consist of all citizens otherwise eligible to vote, not just those who have government issued ID. It's really not that hard to grasp.

05-01-2008 , 12:56 AM

#180

cokehead

grinder

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 501

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

1. I agree, but not all men are American Citizens

2. That is EXACTLY what this argument is about. Only people of a certain means are allowed to vote. They have to be U.S. citizens of at least 18 years of age. It is NOT unreasonable to require that the person who is showing up to vote has some sort of proof of who they are.

I want to ask this question again, are these poor people getting welfare benefits? If so, how?

The point is that it requires more than 'some sort of proof of who they are.' It requires an government issued document.

For example, in New York, your signature offers proof of who you are. There are other ways to do this.

edited to add "Only people of a certain means are allowed to vote. They have to be U.S. citizens of at least 18 years of age" is factually incorrect. The first sentence is ridiculous, and no where in the constitution is it required that you are either a citizen or 18 years old to vote.

Last edited by cokehead; 05-01-2008 at 01:06 AM.

05-01-2008 , 01:06 AM

#181

MuresanForMVP

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 22,064

Quote:

Originally Posted by cokehead

I bet bouncers at local bars love you.

Bouncer: ID sir?
Cokehead: Why isn't my signature good enough? Why do I need a GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID TO PROVE WHO I SAY I AM AND THAT I AM OF AGE?
Bouncer: You're a douche bag. Get the **** outta here

05-01-2008 , 01:14 AM

#182

cokehead

grinder

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 501

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuresanForMVP

What's this have to do with voting? Is there really a right to drink alcohol that is as important as a right to vote?

By the way, in New York we don't believe in carding at bars, so this problem doesn't arise.

05-01-2008 , 01:47 AM

#183

MuresanForMVP

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 22,064

Quote:

Originally Posted by cokehead

What's this have to do with voting? Is there really a right to drink alcohol that is as important as a right to vote?

It has to do with the fact that you need a government issued document to buy booze, porn, cigarettes,etc. I didn't just come up with this, you did. Observe:

Quote:

The point is that it requires more than 'some sort of proof of who they are.' It requires an government issued document.

You shrug off needing a government issued document (identification) to drive a car or buy some Zima, but think it's some huge outrage when you need one to vote. Hell it makes more sense that people need ID to vote rather than to buy booze.

05-01-2008 , 12:39 PM

#184

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

1. I agree, but not all men are American Citizens

2. That is EXACTLY what this argument is about. Only people of a certain means are allowed to vote. They have to be U.S. citizens of at least 18 years of age. It is NOT unreasonable to require that the person who is showing up to vote has some sort of proof of who they are.

I want to ask this question again, are these poor people getting welfare benefits? If so, how?

I don't think you think "means" means what I think it means. "Means" refers to economic standing, not citizenship or age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

How can this process not disenfranchise people AT LEAST as much as requiring showing an ID would?

Uhh. More people have access to a pen and a mailbox than those who have ID? This is exactly what the above studies showed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cokehead

The point is that it requires more than 'some sort of proof of who they are.' It requires an government issued document.

For example, in New York, your signature offers proof of who you are. There are other ways to do this.

edited to add "Only people of a certain means are allowed to vote. They have to be U.S. citizens of at least 18 years of age" is factually incorrect. The first sentence is ridiculous, and no where in the constitution is it required that you are either a citizen or 18 years old to vote.

26th amendment FTW.

05-01-2008 , 01:38 PM

#185

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

26th amendment FTW.

Quote:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You don't have to be 18 to vote according to the Constitution. You don't have be 21 to drink according to the constitution. Both are enforced by various state and federal laws.

05-01-2008 , 02:19 PM

#186

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

How can you possibly read the text of the 26th amendment and not conclude that there is a constitutional requirement that one must be at least 18 to vote?

05-01-2008 , 02:35 PM

#187

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

States may permit someone less than 18 to vote (even though none have) but may not deny the vote to someone older than 18.

05-01-2008 , 02:35 PM

#188

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

How can you possibly read the text of the 26th amendment and not conclude that there is a constitutional requirement that one must be at least 18 to vote?

Because I can read? It guarantees the right of people 18 and over the right to vote. It does not exclude people under 18 from voting

05-01-2008 , 02:45 PM

#189

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Ikestoys,

I defy you to find one reputable opinion that suggests people under the age of 18 have a right to vote in federal elections.

05-01-2008 , 02:51 PM

#190

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Ikestoys,

I defy you to find one reputable opinion that suggests people under the age of 18 have a right to vote in federal elections.

They don't have a right to vote, but the Constitution does not require a person to be 18 in order to vote. DUC the difference?

05-01-2008 , 02:57 PM

#191

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

They don't have a right to vote, but the Constitution does not require a person to be 18 in order to vote. DUC the difference?

I understand what you're saying, but you're simply wrong about how the Amendment would be interpreted by any judge in the country.

05-01-2008 , 03:01 PM

#192

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

How else could Section 1 be interpreted?

BTW, if Ike and I agree on something, it must be right.

05-01-2008 , 03:02 PM

#193

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

I understand what you're saying, but you're simply wrong about how the Amendment would be interpreted by any judge in the country.

lol no I'm not. You could just admit you are wrong btw and stop looking like a fool. Let's post the text again:

Quote:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Therefore, a state could pass a law that allowed 9-13 year old people to vote, disallowed 14-16 year old people to vote, and allow anyone over 17 to vote as long as everyone over 18 years old could vote.

05-01-2008 , 03:43 PM

#194

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

No, because that would then violate the Equal Protection Clause, which requires classifications to have - at least -some rational basis. And granting the right to vote to 13 years old - but not 15 years old - is obviously irrational on its face.

05-01-2008 , 03:47 PM

#195

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

It would still be fine under the 26th amendment, are you going to dispute that or continuing spewing?

05-06-2008 , 04:14 PM

#196

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again:
"Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister"

05-06-2008 , 04:21 PM

#197

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again:
"Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister"

This is not an unintended consequence, this is an intended one.

05-06-2008 , 04:25 PM

#198

bdk3clash

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 6,559

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

This is not an unintended consequence, this is an intended one.

No way, it's totally unintended. Those nuns were probably voting Republican.

05-06-2008 , 04:25 PM

#199

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

If preventing eligible citizens from voting was the intent, yes.

05-06-2008 , 05:19 PM

#200

TomCollins

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 43,064

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Ikestoys,

I defy you to find one reputable opinion that suggests people under the age of 18 have a right to vote in federal elections.

I believe in primaries you can vote if you'll be over 18 by election day. The girl in the Hillary 3 am call is 17 now, and voted for Obama in a Primary.

What do I win?

Page 8 of 9

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Last

...

Page 8 of 9

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Last