NUpolo8 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Well they had to expand the federal power, right? It was brand new, (and many walked away from the first convention in protest, as they were more interested in states rights)Federal power wasn't brand new at the constitutional convention . . . it was just woefully inadequate. The federal government predated the constitutional convention by 8-12 years. Yes I know, and yes it wasn't good. The AOC was not exactly well made or implemented. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Well they had to expand the federal power, right? It was brand new, (and many walked away from the first convention in protest, as they were more interested in states rights)Federal power wasn't brand new at the constitutional convention . . . it was just woefully inadequate. The federal government predated the constitutional convention by 8-12 years. Yes I know, and yes it wasn't good. The AOC was not exactly well made or implemented. Right . . . so they created new rules. (Side note . . . the articles seem to echo in the Civil War and among some Tea Party types.) Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Well they had to expand the federal power, right? It was brand new, (and many walked away from the first convention in protest, as they were more interested in states rights)Federal power wasn't brand new at the constitutional convention . . . it was just woefully inadequate. The federal government predated the constitutional convention by 8-12 years.Yes I know, and yes it wasn't good. The AOC was not exactly well made or implemented.Right . . . so they created new rules.(Side note . . . the articles seem to echo in the Civil War and among some Tea Party types.) Yeah states rights might be the most misinterpreted right by people, it's frightening. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The only thing that scares me here is that the Republicans in office will f#*k it up with the young voters for the 2016 election, and we end up with yet another dumbocrap in office again! Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 Here is the thing that drives me crazy about this entire issue. One side acts like idiots putting rules in place in a way that it's easy for the other side to scream....RACISM. The other side acts like these minorities are the most helpless invalid people who can't do anything for themselves. Heck, if I listened to this side and I was a black teen, I wouldn't think I could never accomplish anything because I am such a helpless poor person in such a dominatingly racist culture that no way in hell I can do anything. No, this is not at all about racism or individual ability or doing things for yourself. A rule that introduces requirements that weren't there before is going to lower the percentage of people who vote. This is simple cause & effect. There's nothing that will ever change that. You make it enough of a hassle that some people are going to say, "You know what? I'm not going to bother." And everyone is not affected equally by this. It takes advantage of the fact that the extra bother is imposed not indiscriminately, but very clearly on certain people more than others. The bottom line is that any group that has to take additional measures is going to turn out less, as a whole. Republicans are taking advantage of a convenient reality that the groups that happen to be hit hardest by these measures, also happen to vote the other way as a whole. There is nothing more to this than those in power changing the rules of the game so as to help themselves stay in power. why don't we send people door to door to vote. Heck, have people on street corners finding the homeless people and getting them to fill out their ballots or just have anyone walking down the street fill it out. We could do it like those annoying polling people in malls asking you to fill out a questionnaire. I'm sure it is an extreme burden for some people to have to actually go to a polling place and vote. I'm sure that making them actually get to a polling place deters some voters. Isn't that suppressing these poor minority people who....just can't get over a burden in their way to vote? Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Are you making the thesis that accessibility of polling places affects minorities, women, and young people equally to voter identification? That seems inaccurate. Though you're correct that generally, everything is harder for poorer citizens, including going out to vote. If Huskerboard reset every account and required every user to go through the password reset process tomorrow, for example, you can bet that there won't be 100% retention, or even 100% retention of regulars. And of those who try, some won't be able to get the verification email to work. For whatever reason. If the groups that will be affected by this voted Republican, it would be Democrats pushing for this and Republicans battling back. 4 Link to comment
Whistlebritches Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 ...yet another dumbocrap in office again! Kind of off-topic but I wish we could get rid of this and things like it in this forum. Rethuglicans, 0bama, etc. Generally speaking things are kept pretty civil in here and name calling does nothing for the discussion. 6 Link to comment
Street Novelist Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Forgive me if this has already been answered, regarding voter registration, don't you just need a driver's license? Isn't that all you need to identify yourself? Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Forgive me if this has already been answered, regarding voter registration, don't you just need a driver's license? Isn't that all you need to identify yourself? I think so but that article is a good illustration of how it's not as straightforward as you think. Though she's now based in Texas, Lauw still has a Louisiana driver’s license. She has tried to get one from Texas, but all the documentation she provided to The Huffington Post -- including her teaching certificate and her honorable military discharge from her time in the Army -- is under her married name. Lauw, who is divorced, has her birth certificate but not her marriage and divorce certificates or two proofs-of-residency, all of which she needs in order to get a Texas driver’s license. I didn't have my drivers license for quite a few years of being a student, and I know I was far from the only one. Even when I did finally get it, it was an out of state license, and a student ID wouldn't have worked in Texas. Plenty of people have expired licenses for whatever reason (though this is far more true of certain demographics than others), even if they have the right to vote. I probably could have figured it out without a license in the end if I were in that position, but I guess you never know. The problem is, if you take thousands of people and throw them into an "Opt In" category for obtaining valid ID, you weed out a good percentage of them. Of course, disallow same day registration on top of that, and weed out the procrastinators as well. What percentage of people do you suppose that is? Link to comment
strigori Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Forgive me if this has already been answered, regarding voter registration, don't you just need a driver's license? Isn't that all you need to identify yourself? Not everyone drives to start with. And a drivers license has a cost attached to it, making it a defacto poll tax, which is illegal. To say nothing of the amazing irony of the same people who spend their time screaming about "too much government" are hard charging for more rules and hurdles to something that has not had those barriers. To say nothing of the fact that there is no evidence to justify said barriers. If it was something that added a hurdle or cost to a business, well that would be a different story I'm sure. So, what would the actual reason be for pushing for ID? 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Oh god we actually are having this discussion again. Yes, any unnecessary barriers are bad. Requiring a driver's license or ID combats a nonexistent voter fraud problem, one that is only a problem inside people's heads. So until we are going door-to-door giving people free IDs, it will deter voter turnout, which is never a good thing. Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 ...yet another dumbocrap in office again! Kind of off-topic but I wish we could get rid of this and things like it in this forum. Rethuglicans, 0bama, etc. Generally speaking things are kept pretty civil in here and name calling does nothing for the discussion. Sorry dude but things are only civil on here if you are a demoncrap Link to comment
tschu Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Self-fulfilling prophecies in this thread Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 Maybe we could just destroy both parties and everyone would be happy. LINK Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 ...yet another dumbocrap in office again! Kind of off-topic but I wish we could get rid of this and things like it in this forum. Rethuglicans, 0bama, etc. Generally speaking things are kept pretty civil in here and name calling does nothing for the discussion. Sorry dude but things are only civil on here if you are a demoncrap I do find it interesting that when Republicans are called names in here (for which it's well known I have no love for right now) nothing is said. But, call Democrats something and posts like this show up. Link to comment
Recommended Posts