Politics

[In Lou I Trust]

Can you test for prescription drugs?

Yes.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So the Army assumes you're using drugs or they randomly **** test you to keep you honest? Also, if a job can choose to **** test someone before they WORK for their money... why can't the govt. test someone before they TAKE our money? Force these people to pay for their own drug testing. If they turn out clean, the money comes out of their Welfare. If they test hot, it comes out of their pockets.

I don't think you really addressed the meat of his argument? Why not test for other government assistance?

And, why does this site filter the word "drug"?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Clearly, there should never be any limitations on getting free money from the federal gov't.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Can we at least require evryone vote in person and dip their finger into purple ink

Which raises a bigger issue, in my opinion...absentee fraud. Not nearly as much mention of that this year.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Because it is a solution in search of a problem. And, because the very essence of our system of government, the one concrete right every citizen in this country can point to demonstrate, "that is what makes America great." As I've said before, I'm not against voter ID laws, but it should be extraordinarily easy to get said ID. That is not what most of these new laws was shooting for. Indeed, it was the opposite.

I can only speak to the Pennsylvania law that was passed and later overturned: it was free to get the new ID

 

[Corry]

All good points. I would add if you cleared all of these hurdles, do you take away assistance to a parent that smokes pot that has two small children. Not a very good scenario but it's real. Do you take away assistance for the children? Haven't you created a another, possibly more expensive problem?

Not in Colorado after tomorrow.

 

[IrishinSyria]

So the Army assumes you're using drugs or they randomly **** test you to keep you honest? Also, if a job can choose to **** test someone before they WORK for their money... why can't the govt. test someone before they TAKE our money? Force these people to pay for their own drug testing. If they turn out clean, the money comes out of their Welfare. If they test hot, it comes out of their pockets.

The Army tests us because a) drug usage is directly detrimental to good order discipline b) drug use is a huge problem in the Army and c) we voluntarily give up our constitutional rights to protect them for the rest of the country.

B is the only one that- may- apply to welfare recipients, but you'd have to have some pretty definitive proof to justify a massive new federal program during this time of thrift. B also applies to college students, farmers, bankers, pretty much everyone who receives some sort of aid from the government. So why do we drug test the military? It's reasons A and C. Those do not apply to welfare recipients.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I just think it's a difficult situation since people are abusing prescription drugs more and more.

How are they going to be able to determine if it's drug abuse?

 

[connor_in]

Which raises a bigger issue, in my opinion...absentee fraud. Not nearly as much mention of that this year.

and worse...the lack of getting ballots to military men overseas in time thus disenfranchising them...always gets me honked when I see this every election cycle

 

[IrishJayhawk]

and worse...the lack of getting ballots to military men overseas in time thus disenfranchising them...always gets me honked when I see this every election cycle

If that happens, it's heinous.

 

[IrishinSyria]

All good points. I would add if you cleared all of these hurdles, do you take away assistance to a parent that smokes pot that has two small children. Not a very good scenario but it's real. Do you take away assistance for the children? Haven't you created a another, possibly more expensive problem?

Excellent point. Even if people do use drugs, taking away assistance that they are using to survive is not likely to set them on a course for greatness- if anything, it will make them more desperate and thus a significantly higher cost on society (and those two children in your example.)

 

[pkt77242]

Voter ID laws suppress vote fraud, which suppresses Democrats who like to vote early and often. So yes, it does "disenfranchise" relative to what they are use to getting away with.

Bullshit. Tell me about the last major in person voter fraud. It is almost nonexistent. Absentee ballots are more likely to be abused.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

The Army tests us because a) drug usage is directly detrimental to good order discipline b) drug use is a huge problem in the Army and c) we voluntarily give up our constitutional rights to protect them for the rest of the country.

B is the only one that- may- apply to welfare recipients, but you'd have to have some pretty definitive proof to justify a massive new federal program during this time of thrift. B also applies to college students, farmers, bankers, pretty much everyone who receives some sort of aid from the government. So why do we drug test the military? It's reasons A and C. Those do not apply to welfare recipients.

I don't see how 'A' doesn't apply to Welfare recipients or every person in general. 'B' is a common problem in America in general... not just the military. As for 'C'... that's not the reason they test you, that's the reason they're ABLE to test you. The other forms of "government aid" that you speak of are quite different from Welfare. Students, farmers, bankers and the like are earning that money. A student "works" for theirs by going to school. Farmers and bankers would fall under the category of actually working. Comparing Welfare recipients to these other people is quite ridiculous.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Our current system(s) can't detect voter fraud in the first place. So saying it "doesn't exist" because it hasn't been caught lately is like saying there's no bribery in Russia. All we know is that our systems are quite vulnerable to it, hence the need for fraud prevention.

Not to mention, the U.S. is basically the only country who votes totally on this "honor system".

 

[Rhode Irish]

Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system | The Cable

Voter ID laws are implemented to avoid voter fraud, aka 20 million dead people voting nationwide. If we need ID to drive cars, buy booze, etc. etc. getting proper ID (with proper time) is not intimidation. It's common friggin sense.

And since progressives love looking to other countries and adoring them, every other country in the world has voter ID laws.

Dude, I'm not a Republican. I'm on no losing side. Until this year I was a registered Democrat and even voted for Obama in 2008. I personally feel that there should be voter ID laws in every state; ones that require strict photo ID. Of all the things that require ID, why is something so important as voting excluded?

I get that this might be a nuanced point (although it shouldn't be), but the difference between buying booze or driving a car or getting into my office building and voting is that voting is a fundamental right. Which means that the government cannot infringe upon that right without a compelling reason (note: you may think the threat of fraud is a compelling reason, this is a legal term of art and is an almost impossible standard to satisfy - it is the highest standard in judicial review).

The same thing that may intuitively suggest to you that voter ID is so important is ironically the reason why it is probably unconstitutional: it's importance. The issue is that many poor people do not have drivers licenses, and forcing them to get one in order to vote is the equivalent of a poll tax (which is unconstitutional). If states wanted to give everyone a state-issued photo ID for free, that's probably ok. But the timing of getting them to everyone is an issue (must be done well ahead of time), and what do you do in the case where someone loses their ID? They lose their right to vote??

 

[IrishInFl]

Here's the final electoral-vote.com composite poll map

The biggest thing to mention is that there only two states that are toss-ups (being within 1% point): North Carolina and Colorado. Obama should win the electoral vote with relative ease.

The senate race should be close, but it appears the Democratic Party will retain the Senate, and the Republican Party will retain the House.

A special note to all Florida voters: vote no on all the amendments, they all suck IMHO.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Also, Leppy, whoever told you there were 20M confirmed cases of voter fraud (dead people voting or otherwise) lied right to your face.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Constitution Check: Is it unconstitutional to require voters to have a photo ID? | Constitution Daily

 

[Irish Houstonian]

North Carolina is not a straight "toss-up". It's going Romney. He might not win the country but he's certainly winning NC.

 

[tadman95]

Also, Leppy, whoever told you there were 20M confirmed cases of voter fraud (dead people voting or otherwise) lied right to your face.

I just assumed he had a typo, LOL

 

[tadman95]

North Carolina is not a straight "toss-up". It's going Romney. He might not win the country but he's certainly winning NC.

Yea Romney will win NC

 

[IrishJayhawk]

North Carolina is not a straight "toss-up". It's going Romney. He might not win the country but he's certainly winning NC.

Probably true.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Here's the final electoral-vote.com composite poll map

The biggest thing to mention is that there only two states that are toss-ups (being within 1% point): North Carolina and Colorado. Obama should win the electoral vote with relative ease.

The senate race should be close, but it appears the Democratic Party will retain the Senate, and the Republican Party will retain the House.

A special note to all Florida voters: vote no on all the amendments, they all suck IMHO.

I agree with you, with the caveat if the polling is correct. We've talked over and over about the assumptions that are used in regards to turnout and composition of the voters that drive the polling. Heck, even exit polls (which should be the most accurate of all) have been known to be off.

If Obama can get turnout similar to 2008 he will probably win. If there is a material drop in turnout, then Romney will win. The problem is nobody knows what the turnout will be. They can all give their best guesses, based upon sound reasoning, but in the end nobody knows. There are enough polls that are close enough that it could end up in a landslide for either candidate, or it could be a virtual tie.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Also, Leppy, whoever told you there were 20M confirmed cases of voter fraud (dead people voting or otherwise) lied right to your face.

I was being sarcastic and pulled a number out of my head. Four letters for you: SEIU

 

[In Lou I Trust]

So I'm watching FOXNews and those turncoats just played an Obama ad!!!! Not to mention it's the Colin Powell ad!!!! What a blatant display of partisanship.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I agree with you, with the caveat if the polling is correct. We've talked over and over about the assumptions that are used in regards to turnout and composition of the voters that drive the polling. Heck, even exit polls (which should be the most accurate of all) have been known to be off.

If Obama can get turnout similar to 2008 he will probably win. If there is a material drop in turnout, then Romney will win. The problem is nobody knows what the turnout will be. They can all give their best guesses, based upon sound reasoning, but in the end nobody knows. There are enough polls that are close enough that it could end up in a landslide for either candidate, or it could be a virtual tie.

The electorate has also been trending to larger minority percentages. It has been for 20 years, not just in the 2008 election. Latino vote keeps going up and Obama will win it by 40 points. Many polls actually seem to under-sample that demographic.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So I'm watching FOXNews and those turncoats just played an Obama ad!!!! Not to mention it's the Colin Powell ad!!!! What a blatant display of partisanship.

That's a really effective ad.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Constitution Check: Is it unconstitutional to require voters to have a photo ID? | Constitution Daily

With all due respect to Mr. Denniston, he is either intentionally misstating both the issue and the law for political reasons, or he is simply mistaken. In either case, he is wrong (in my opinion - even the best judges in the world disagree on most legal issues but I would suspect I'd win this argument if we argued it in front of a panel of constitutional lawyers and judges).

 

[In Lou I Trust]

So not to get off topic but I was talking to a coworker earlier about the Electoral College. What say y'all about it? Keep it or toss it?

 

[ab2cmiller]

The electorate has also been trending to larger minority percentages. It has been for 20 years, not just in the 2008 election. Latino vote keeps going up and Obama will win it by 40 points. Many polls actually seem to under-sample that demographic.

Your point could very well be true. Both sides think that the polls are based upon assumptions that under report support levels for their candidate.