Politics

[95NDAlumNM]

Who pays for these free id's that people can so easily get if they do not have a drivers license? There is time for the government workers to process them, there are materials being used to make them. Who is paying for these court cases to defend these asinine laws? I thought the republicans are for smaller government and less regulations. It seems like they are for that only when it meets their agenda. Very hypocritical.

 

[jason_h537]

Here is a quote from the state of Pennsylvania defending it's new voter ID law in court

"The parties are not aware of any any in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania. There is no evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law"

 

[magogian]

Well seeing as how you ignored my previous post, here is the simplified version. In person voter fraud is virtually non existent. 10 verified cases nationwide in 12 years according to a brand new study.

Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data show - The Washington Post

So you support a law that protects against something that does not exist. You are willing to disenfranchise even 1 voter, in support of a law that a nationwide study shows is absolutely unnecessary. A law supported by a party that claims to protect individual liberties.

You can argue how easy it is to get ID's but the point is that this law will affect people, no matter how small the number. This is the equivalent of passing a law requiring pants to vote. You can say how easy it is to just wear pants, but people will forget and show up in skirts and shorts. So because of an unnecessary law, those that forget to wear pants will lose their voting rights.

Now to the idea that liberals are being conspiracy theorists. Ohio Republicans voted to extend early voting periods in Republican districts and shorten them in those that traditionally vote democratic. That doesn't seem fishy to you? The Secretary of State had to jump in to overturn this.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted calls for uniform early voting hours | cleveland.com

You are correct that there aren't very many recent cases of proven in person voter impersonation fraud. But that really isn't the point.

The current systems in states without voter ID laws make it virtually impossible to detect such fraud. In other words, the absence of evidence here isn't evidence of absence. The issue is that such fraud is virtually undetectable and there are very strong incentives to commit such fraud.

As I've previously discussed, it is ridiculously easy in many states to commit such voter fraud. Individuals (whether Republican or Democrat) have strong incentives to commit such fraud if they are willing to commit such an act. Combine that with the fact that it is virtually impossible to detect when occuring or after the fact and you have a strong argument for such voter ID laws.

So, you decry the lack of evidence. Well, frankly, it is an unfair argument because the rules in most states rig the game against being able to find such evidence. It is sort of like demanding that a person visually prove that more than a few stars exist outside of our solar system while denying them access to telescopes and only allowing them to look during the day. Then, when they can only point to a few stars that are visible to the naked eye during the day, you then say it is proof that only a few stars exist. Ummm, no. You've rigged the game to where the individual can't find the evidence. This isn't a perfect analogy, but the point is sufficient.

That is why even many liberals (not to mention 74% of the populace, Washington Post Poll Indicates Nearly 75% of Americans Support Voter ID Laws for Election Day | TheBlaze.com) support such voter ID laws.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Seriously, BOG, every federal courthouse requires you to show some sort of identication (Driver's license, state bar card, etc.) The one exception, which I just learned today, is SCOTUS. Eric Holder unaware that court visitors must show ID - POLITICO.com

Please stop pretending you actually know about such things.

magog;

Your abysmal understanding of the American English language is only exceeded by two things: your ability to create confusion with it, instead of communicate concisely and on point; and your nasty attitude toward your fellow board members, especially when you are being driven into the ground under the weight of the illogical arguments you often present.

If you look at my post I said the following:

Originally Posted by Bogtrotter07
If those kind of ID's were required for that, and they aren't.


I can walk into my Fed, State/Co/City BLDGS, Co and Muni courts without ID.

So I didn't say shiit about a Federal Courthouse, as you didn't limit your example in your original post to a Federal Courthouse. I have never treated you in the manner you treat me and everyone else.

The only reason for requiring an ID for in person voting is because you want to limit the vote. And that is the only way for any candidate ascribing to an elitist agenda winning a popular election in the United States.


Beir bua agus beannacht,

Grehar the Bogtrotter

 

[magogian]

Who pays for these free id's that people can so easily get if they do not have a drivers license? There is time for the government workers to process them, there are materials being used to make them. Who is paying for these court cases to defend these asinine laws? I thought the republicans are for smaller government and less regulations. It seems like they are for that only when it meets their agenda. Very hypocritical.

Come on. Both Dems and Reps agree that voting is critical to our Republic. Republicans just put a great emphasis on vote integrity. Government should be smaller but even within the realm of "smaller" certain core functions must properly maintained and administered, such as national defense, a strong court system to maintain the rule of law, and, yes, vote integrity is one as well.

 

[Buster Bluth]

When the President came to Toledo a few weeks ago you had to have a Photo ID to get in, but you don't need one to vote for him? Hmmm.....

I think it's despicable to disenfranchise anyone, but at the same time I don't feel that "well we haven't seen a lot of cases..." is worthless because 1) it sounds pretty easy to get away with, and 2) who is actually looking very hard? Certainly not the folks in power if they keep winning elections.

I am perfectly content with the idea that you have to prove via photo ID that you exist. You have to do that with so many other things in daily life (e.g. drive a car, buy alcohol and cigarettes, rent a car, visit the Library of Congress and a slew of government buildings).

I think the government should make a basic level of ID's free though, so no one is left out of they want a basic ID to vote. Sounds pretty cut and dry.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It doesn't make perfect sense to you that screening for a possible threat to our leadership would be different and more likely than voter fraud?

 

[jason_h537]

You are correct that there aren't very many recent cases of proven in person voter impersonation fraud. But that really isn't the point.

The current systems in states without voter ID laws make it virtually impossible to detect such fraud. In other words, the absence of evidence here isn't evidence of absence. The issue is that such fraud is virtually undetectable and there are very strong incentives to commit such fraud.

As I've previously discussed, it is ridiculously easy in many states to commit such voter fraud. Individuals (whether Republican or Democrat) have strong incentives to commit such fraud if they are willing to commit such an act. Combine that with the fact that it is virtually impossible to detect when occuring or after the fact and you have a strong argument for such voter ID laws.

So, you decry the lack of evidence. Well, frankly, it is an unfair argument because the rules in most states rig the game against being able to find such evidence. It is sort of like demanding that a person visually prove that more than a few stars exist outside of our solar system while denying them access to telescopes and only allowing them to look during the day. Then, when they can only point to a few stars that are visible to the naked eye during the day, you then say it is proof that only a few stars exist. Ummm, no. You've rigged the game to where the individual can't find the evidence. This isn't a perfect analogy, but the point is sufficient.

That is why even many liberals (not to mention 74% of the populace, Washington Post Poll Indicates Nearly 75% of Americans Support Voter ID Laws for Election Day | TheBlaze.com) support such voter ID laws.

NO, there is zero evidence because it DOES NOT HAPPEN. There is factual evidence, research, studies, done that says this is a non issue. Now you can argue that this is just a study done by "liberal, ivory tower, elitists", but the Republican National Lawyers Association, a republican organization in support of voter ID laws could only find 350 cases of voter fraud nationwide in the same time span. That is the difference between 0.00001%-0.7% of voter fraud per state. Yet, your only defense is, that they just got away it. Based on no evidence, you just want to believe that it happens. When all facts say otherwise. The best you can come up with is an opinion poll.

 

[magogian]

magog;

Your abysmal understanding of the American English language is only exceeded by two things: your lesser ability to create confusion with it, instead of communicate concisely and on point; and your nasty attitude toward your fellow board members, especially when you are being driven into the ground under the weight of the illogical arguments you present.

If you look at my post I said the following:



So I didn't say shiit about a Federal Courthouse, as you didn't limit your example in your original post to a Federal Courthouse. I have never treated you in the manner you treat me and everyone else.

The only reason for requiring an ID for in person voting is because you want to limit the vote. And that is the only way for any candidate ascribing to an elitist agenda winning a popular election in the United States.


Beir bua agus beannacht,

Grehar the Bogtrotter

1. Hey, I'll admit when I'm wrong. I misread your post to include federal courthouses. Congrats that your local county court doesn't require ID. Many do. And all federal courthouses do, except for SCOTUS. So, my point remains. If an ID is required for practically every federal building (at least in D.C., and I believe most if not all around the country, except for, obviously, post offices), all federal courthouses, etc. by your logic the only possible justification is to make it more difficult for the individual to exercise their constitutional rights, e.g. petition the government for redress of grievances.

2. You aren't going to drag me into the mud with you. Contrary to your allegations in many prior posts, I haven't engaged in name calling against fellow posters. At worst, I say someone is making a terrible argument or doesn't know what they are talking about. That is quite a bit different from name calling or the abuse that has been heaped on me by you and Rhode Irish, etc. ("worst person," etc.).

I see you obviously have an issue with me because you are constantly harassing me in various threads. We should just stop responding to each other because obviously nothing productive is coming from it.

 

[IrishMoore1]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bxch-yi14BE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[jason_h537]

When the President came to Toledo a few weeks ago you had to have a Photo ID to get in, but you don't need one to vote for him? Hmmm.....

I think it's despicable to disenfranchise anyone, but at the same time I don't feel that "well we haven't seen a lot of cases..." is worthless because 1) it sounds pretty easy to get away with, and 2) who is actually looking very hard? Certainly not the folks in power if they keep winning elections.

I am perfectly content with the idea that you have to prove via photo ID that you exist. You have to do that with so many other things in daily life (e.g. drive a car, buy alcohol and cigarettes, rent a car, visit the Library of Congress and a slew of government buildings).

I think the government should make a basic level of ID's free though, so no one is left out of they want a basic ID to vote. Sounds pretty cut and dry.

I will tell you who is looking hard. There was an independent unbiased study done by universities nationwide that could only fond 10 cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years, and a Republican organization in favor of voter ID laws that found 350 cases in the same time span. Both equal less than 1% cases of voter fraud.

If you want to implement voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud that does not exist, you can't do so 2 months before a national presidential election. People will be disenfranchised.

 

[magogian]

A more interesting question.

1.a. What should Obama do if Israel conducts an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities?

1.b. What will Obama do in that situation?

 

[jason_h537]

A more interesting question.

1.a. What should Obama do if Israel conducts an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities?

1.b. What will Obama do in that situation?

I'd prefer to hope that doesn't happen.

 

[magogian]

I'd prefer to hope that doesn't happen.

I as well. But, recently, the war drums have sounded quite loud.

 

[Redbar]

A more interesting question.

1.a. What should Obama do if Israel conducts an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities?

1.b. What will Obama do in that situation?

I guess the voter id topic was beginning to wear thin so let's throw this grenade in the room heh? I'll humor you, I think this president who every one accused of trying to capitulate to Europe, and who wasn't strong enough to stand up to Islamist, should do whatever Isreal wants: back them up, go in first, stick our kids' necks out there and run up some more deficits, whatever Netanyahu wants for Israel.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

A more interesting question.

1.a. What should Obama do if Israel conducts an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities?

1.b. What will Obama do in that situation?

1.a. Provide intelligence and air support, from existing resources already committed in the region and Gulf if possible.

1.b. If the strike is before the election, probably nothing, except telling Israel to wait until after the election for his support. If after the election, he'll probably do 1.a in the most covert, non-committal and unilateral manner possible (a la Libya).

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Iran can be seen as a bit of a not issue. Particularly if Obama keeps his foreign policy consistant with what he has been doing.

A) all you have to do is to threaten to hold up all of Israel's aid;

B) Provide the information and targeting directives to be surgical in a strike to send their nuclear program back to the Stone Age. If that is what needed. Unfortuantely, over the last ten years my faith in the information that the government presents is less than zero.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I will tell you who is looking hard. There was an independent unbiased study done by universities nationwide that could only fond 10 cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years, and a Republican organization in favor of voter ID laws that found 350 cases in the same time span. Both equal less than 1% cases of voter fraud.

If you want to implement voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud that does not exist, you can't do so 2 months before a national presidential election. People will be disenfranchised.

I can agree with the timing issue perhaps. But I don't see how two entities with no legal authority means squat, Republican or not.

 

[Buster Bluth]

A more interesting question.

1.a. What should Obama do if Israel conducts an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities?

1.b. What will Obama do in that situation?

I don't think a President has lost an election during a war, so it would bode well for him.

Israel would wipe the floor with Iran, I'm not worried about it. Obama should sit back and sell Israel weaponry and give them flight access and information but that's it.

I think Obama has done fairly well with his foreign policy, I'd probably give him a B-.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I don't think a President has lost an election during a war, so it would bode well for him.

Israel would wipe the floor with Iran, I'm not worried about it. Obama should sit back and sell Israel weaponry and give them flight access and information but that's it.

I think Obama has done fairly well with his foreign policy, I'd probably give him a B-.

I agree.

 

[Redbar]

I was talking to an Indian Ship Captain, very wise man and this was around the time of the 2008 election when McCain was doing a lot of saber rattling around Iran. He was telling me that the US should forget about Iran, China was who we should watch. He said they are buying up resources around the globe and it was impossible to compete, because their national "companies" have the backing of the whole government. He asked me to name China's allies. He went on to say that he had been to Iran many times and it was really a nice place. He said they want to where blue jeans drink cokes and go to the mall just like us. He admitted that their leadership was a bunch of hard right religious zealots but the people don't want to fight us they want to be like us. Most importantly they have a nice life, nice economy, he felt that all they are doing is trying to portray strength to the west, Israel, and to the Iranian people. But that the Iranian leadership could never start a war with us or even Israel unless they were attacked first because the people are very moderate and it would be the end of the regime if that got to far out of step with the people. He went on to say that the places we have to worry about are the places that have nothing, places like North Korea and Pakistan (both places he had also been)who he was quick to mention are China's only real allies. He asked why an up and coming nation like China would ally themselves and even give nuclear technology to countries that have nothing, one doesn't even control it's own borders the other does or at least did have a certifiable nut job ruling it. He felt we needed to stop outsourcing OUR middle east policies to Israel and what benefits them and keep our eye on the real threat to American security which he felt was China.
I think there is a lot of truth in what he was saying.

 

[Rizzophil]

I don't think a President has lost an election during a war, so it would bode well for him.

Israel would wipe the floor with Iran, I'm not worried about it. Obama should sit back and sell Israel weaponry and give them flight access and information but that's it.

I think Obama has done fairly well with his foreign policy, I'd probably give him a B-.

I totally disagree about the foreign policy. He has completed botched everything in the Middle East. Egypt is going to be an enemy state with terrible consequences. He promised to shut down Git-mo...then he didn't. He reduced our nuclear supply to make it clear to the whole world that we were no longer the world's super power. Obama took all the credit for finding Bin ***** even though it was Bush's policies that led to his assault. Plus, it was Obama's White House leaked classified information for political gain, that got the same Navy Seal's killed. There is more but Obama gets a big F!

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and do a little research. Don't watch the mainstream media - even Chris Mathews knows it's liberal.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I totally disagree about the foreign policy. He has completed botched everything in the Middle East. Egypt is going to be an enemy state with terrible consequences. He promised to shut down Git-mo...then he didn't. He reduced our nuclear supply to make it clear to the whole world that we were no longer the world's super power. Obama took all the credit for finding Bin ***** even though it was Bush's policies that led to his assault. Plus, it was Obama's White House leaked classified information for political gain, that got the same Navy Seal's killed. There is more but Obama gets a big F!

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and do a little research. Don't watch the mainstream media - even Chris Mathews knows it's liberal.

Bush said he didn't think about Bin ***** much.

 

[connor_in]

I guess the voter id topic was beginning to wear thin so let's throw this grenade in the room heh?.

Here's a grenade for the room!

Over the course of Presidential elections there have been a number of "October Surprises" or conspiracies that one would occur. With that said, what do you think the current administration would do for an October Surprise?
(Feel free to break out a new box of Reynolds Wrap if you want...cue the conspiracy pic)

 

[Redbar]

About Egypt, either your are for Democracy or you are not. If Egypt turns out to be an enemy state it's going to be because the people there don't like our policies but we can't champion freedom and then support totalitarianism abroad. It has a way of creeping into your society as well. There is no fence we can build to stop un-democratic thought and policy as evidenced by the special administrators in Michigan and the assault on voting rights and collective bargaining, and the constant re-litigation of women's rights. Further, what specific Bush policy led to the killing of OBL? Most neo-cons thought Obama was a newbie for saying he would strike inside Pakistan. How does Bush get credit for OBL but not the economy? What am I missing here?

 

[IrishMoore1]

I totally disagree about the foreign policy. He has completed botched everything in the Middle East. Egypt is going to be an enemy state with terrible consequences. He promised to shut down Git-mo...then he didn't. He reduced our nuclear supply to make it clear to the whole world that we were no longer the world's super power. Obama took all the credit for finding Bin ***** even though it was Bush's policies that led to his assault. Plus, it was Obama's White House leaked classified information for political gain, that got the same Navy Seal's killed. There is more but Obama gets a big F!

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and do a little research. Don't watch the mainstream media - even Chris Mathews knows it's liberal.

In March 2002 President Bush said following on Bin *****, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I am deeply concerned about Iraq. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

I'll even embed the clip of this statement:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4PGmnz5Ow-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Trying to take away credit from Obama just makes you look foolish at this point. Stop trying to clown us with your partisan propaganda.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Last week Romney said that he didn't think it was worth moving heaven and earth to kill Bin *****. What kind of statement is that?

 

[magogian]

About Egypt, either your are for Democracy or you are not.

To be fair, when people (or least most Americans) say "Democracy," I think they mean something more akin to "Constitutional Liberalism." In other words, 50% + 1 (little "d" democracy) isn't the end all. Rather, it is a democratic voting process in the context of system that provides for rule of law, protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, religion, and the press, etc.

While democracy is an important component of Democracy, it is perhaps not even as important as rule of law, freedom of . . . , etc. In other words, if you have to choose the former or the latter, many would say the latter is more important. The former, however, is of course an important component to usually creating the rule of law and freedoms and generally necessary to perpetuate that system. But to conflate democracy with Democracy/Constitutional Liberalism is to miss the forest for a tree, albeit an important tree.

In other words, I don't think people who decry the "democracy" in Egypt are being inconsistent.

(Sorry that this post is somewhat awkwardly worded.)

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

To be fair, when people (or least most Americans) say "Democracy," I think they mean something more akin to "Constitutional Liberalism." In other words, 50% + 1 (little "d" democracy) isn't the end all. Rather, it is a democratic voting process in the context of system that provides for rule of law, protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, religion, and the press, etc.

While democracy is an important component of Democracy, it is perhaps not even as important as rule of law, freedom of . . . , etc. In other words, if you have to choose the former or the latter, many would say the latter is more important. The former, however, is of course an important component to usually creating the rule of law and freedoms and generally necessary to perpetuate that system. But to conflate democracy with Democracy/Constitutional Liberalism is to miss the forest for a tree, albeit an important tree.

In other words, I don't think people who decry the "democracy" in Egypt are being inconsistent.

(Sorry that this post is somewhat awkwardly worded.)

Interesting post. Good work.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Last week Romney said that he didn't think it was worth moving heaven and earth to kill Bin *****. What kind of statement is that?

A true one. Al-Qaeda was severly weakened and it wouldnt have been worth a war with Pakistan to find him.

I dont give Obama credit, other than having the balls to give the "yes" call, and i dont give Bush credit either. I give our military and intelligence agency 99% of the credit. They are top notch, and the President no creative input. They say yes and no to general strategies.