• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kansas and Arizona win voter proof-of-citizenship ruling

danielpalos said:
It was about Socialism beginning with a social contract.

In Any Case, it is about Government by We the People.
Click to expand...

Socialism is primarily an economic system. All systems in society begin with a social contract. Capitalism begins with a social contract which is the sanctity of private property and the rule of law. All capitalistic societies contain a degree of socialism.

What is about government by we the people?
 
sawdust said:
Socialism is primarily an economic system. All systems in society begin with a social contract. Capitalism begins with a social contract which is the sanctity of private property and the rule of law. All capitalistic societies contain a degree of socialism.

What is about government by we the people?
Click to expand...

Capitalism is primarily an economic system. Socialism includes Government.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're partially correct - voting is perhaps the singular fundemental right of "every citizen" in any form of democracy. Surely, in order that the state/republic doesn't abuse or devalue this fundemental right of citizenship you hold, you should demand that only citizens exercise that fundemental right - correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. So give me a security measure that doesn't prevent legitimate citizens from voting, particularly a measure that doesn't conveniently do so to people who vote for your opponent, and we'll talk. I've offered my solution to it, right-wingers rarely agree to it.
 
sawdust said:
Ok, so I could register as sawdust? How many other names could I use?



Which is it? Is it at the polling place or not in line in the polling place. I'm confused as I suspect you might be.



Do what? Prove who you are? How should we be required to do that?



Something we agree on. That's why registrars require registration prior to the day of the vote.



Allrighty then, what the hell are we arguing about?
Click to expand...

It's not like this everywhere, but here you can register at the polling place on election day. So it is entirely possible to not be preregistered. You do have to prove that you reside in the precinct in which you register. I assume it would be hard to register under any fake name or internet handle, unless you had ID proving it to be your legal name.

It's imperfect. Any system will be. If you're really intent on voting more than once, you're going to find a way to do it. Just like if you're really intent on shooting up a McDonald's, no amount of gun control will stop you. But...the amount of effort it would take to do this on a level that it would seriously affect an election requires resources and time that nobody has on their own, unless they work for the Democratic or Republican parties. The fact that the Republican party is all-in on this doesn't tell me that they don't cheat. It tells me that they're better at it, or have more effective methods.
 
rocket88 said:
It's imperfect. Any system will be.
Click to expand...

From Foreign Policy Magazine:

For the head of Libya's national election commission, the method by which Americans vote is startling in that it depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike.

"It's an incredible system," said Nuri K. Elabbar, who traveled to the United States along with election officials from more than 60 countries to observe today's presidential elections as part of a program run by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). Your humble Cable guy visited polling places with some of the international officials this morning. Most of them agreed that in their countries, such an open voting system simply would not work. . . .

The most often noted difference between American elections among the visitors was that in most U.S. states, voters need no identification. Voters can also vote by mail, sometimes online, and there's often no way to know if one person has voted several times under different names, unlike in some Arab countries, where voters ink their fingers when casting their ballots.

The international visitors also noted that there's no police at U.S. polling stations. In foreign countries, police at polling places are viewed as signs of security; in the United States they are sometimes seen as intimidating. . . .

In Morocco, the poll workers take the unused ballots outside at the end of the night and burn them, McCormick said. In Russia, unused ballots are piled up and a poll worker drives a spike though the pile with a hammer. In The Gambia, a country in West Africa, each voter is given exactly one marble, which they place in one of the large marble collecting jars that are set up for each candidate.

"The polls workers are listening because when the marble goes into the jar, there's a ding. And if there are two dings, maybe somebody came in with extra marbles in their pocket, so they call the police," she said.​

So when Republicans are screaming about how we don't trust Democrats to play fair we're basically aligned with most every other nation on the Earth in terms of trying to preserve the integrity of elections.
 
rocket88 said:
A lot of non citizens also have valid photo IDs. Having a drivers license is not restricted to citizens.

I've noticed that nobody wants to address that because it's not a talking point.
Click to expand...
Drivers licenses are listed to non-resident aliens. ID cards are issued to non resident aliens. They have very clear markings on them such as distinctive colored stripes or the words DRIVING PRIVILEGES ONLY or NOT FOR FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION on them. You are grasping.
 
Why is it such an incredible hardship for Liberals to comply with the law in order to vote?
 
rocket88 said:
It's not like this everywhere, but here you can register at the polling place on election day. So it is entirely possible to not be preregistered. You do have to prove that you reside in the precinct in which you register. I assume it would be hard to register under any fake name or internet handle, unless you had ID proving it to be your legal name.

It's imperfect. Any system will be. If you're really intent on voting more than once, you're going to find a way to do it. Just like if you're really intent on shooting up a McDonald's, no amount of gun control will stop you. But...the amount of effort it would take to do this on a level that it would seriously affect an election requires resources and time that nobody has on their own, unless they work for the Democratic or Republican parties. The fact that the Republican party is all-in on this doesn't tell me that they don't cheat. It tells me that they're better at it, or have more effective methods.
Click to expand...

I live in Florida. All I can say to you is Bush Gore. You are evidently a Democrat which is why you don't trust Republicans. I have watched the voting abuse of groups like ACORN and fake Tea Party candidates designed to siphon Republicans and don't particularly trust Democrats. I think that anything that can be done to make the vote honest is a good thing and I think that identification is important. To say that a system of proper identification is voter suppression is just bizarre.
 
Ray410 said:
Why is it such an incredible hardship for Liberals to comply with the law in order to vote?
Click to expand...

Why is it such an incredible hardship for Conservatives to comply with the law in order in order to be legal to it; immigration has not been a States' right since 1808.
 
Deuce said:
Yes. So give me a security measure that doesn't prevent legitimate citizens from voting, particularly a measure that doesn't conveniently do so to people who vote for your opponent, and we'll talk. I've offered my solution to it, right-wingers rarely agree to it.
Click to expand...

Government is in the business of issuing ID for all kinds of reasons - one recognized for voting doesn't seem so onerous.

Here's an idea - why not start with citizens who file income tax returns, as we do here in Canada - if you file a return, you can check a box that automatically registers you with all federal, provincial, and municipal election commissions. If you don't do it in the US, why not - if you do, then seems like only those not contributing to the upkeep of society aren't automatically registered.
 
sawdust said:
I live in Florida. All I can say to you is Bush Gore. You are evidently a Democrat which is why you don't trust Republicans. I have watched the voting abuse of groups like ACORN and fake Tea Party candidates designed to siphon Republicans and don't particularly trust Democrats. I think that anything that can be done to make the vote honest is a good thing and I think that identification is important. To say that a system of proper identification is voter suppression is just bizarre.
Click to expand...

I don't trust either party. What's disturbing is that you apparently do trust Republicans, who are just as out to cheat the system as anyone. Both parties make what I think is an erroneous assumption that Voter ID laws will hurt Democrats. That's why Republicans are in favor of it, and that's why Democrats are against it. It is intended to suppress Democratic votes - and it's not a race thing or any of the other talking points - the assumption is basically out there that it would help one party and hurt the other party. Obviously, less Democratic votes is something the Republicans would like to see.

Given that it's a cosmetic change with what I think would be almost negligible impact, I can't justify the government making laws about it. You're the "libertarian," but you trust Republicans and want the government making ineffective laws to affect our lives and rights?
 
rocket88 said:
I don't trust either party. What's disturbing is that you apparently do trust Republicans, who are just as out to cheat the system as anyone. Both parties make what I think is an erroneous assumption that Voter ID laws will hurt Democrats. That's why Republicans are in favor of it, and that's why Democrats are against it. It is intended to suppress Democratic votes - and it's not a race thing or any of the other talking points - the assumption is basically out there that it would help one party and hurt the other party. Obviously, less Democratic votes is something the Republicans would like to see.

Given that it's a cosmetic change with what I think would be almost negligible impact, I can't justify the government making laws about it. You're the "libertarian," but you trust Republicans and want the government making ineffective laws to affect our lives and rights?
Click to expand...

It's just that as I read the news if there are articles which call into question voting practices, it's generally involving Democrats. Registration and proof of identity are favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. What does this lead me to believe? With respect to the balance of government I agree with you that neither party represents the limited government that I prefer. Democrats favor big government and central planing as a matter of policy, Republicans just give lip service to limited government but when it comes to policy the only difference between the parties is that they both want government to expand. Democrats want an expanding welfare state, Republicans want an expanding military industrial complex. Not much of a choice but on voting, Republican initiatives make more sense to me.
 
Tell the poor souls not being allowed to vote now that Gipper said "lo siento".
 
CanadaJohn said:
Government is in the business of issuing ID for all kinds of reasons - one recognized for voting doesn't seem so onerous.

Here's an idea - why not start with citizens who file income tax returns, as we do here in Canada - if you file a return, you can check a box that automatically registers you with all federal, provincial, and municipal election commissions. If you don't do it in the US, why not - if you do, then seems like only those not contributing to the upkeep of society aren't automatically registered.
Click to expand...

Non citizens are required to file Income taxes in the US...even illegal aliens. They are given a Tax Indentification Number. Permenant residents are not citizens and are required to have SSnumbers
 
1750Texan said:
Non citizens are required to file Income taxes in the US...even illegal aliens. They are given a Tax Indentification Number. Permenant residents are not citizens and are required to have SSnumbers
Click to expand...

You're not required to detail your residence of birth on income tax filings in the US? You're telling me that illegal aliens in the US file income tax returns and yet by some accounts there are anywhere between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens "hiding in the shadows" in the US. Maybe the first order of business for immigration reform would be for the IRS to go after all those illegal alien income tax filers and report them to law enforcement.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're not required to detail your residence of birth on income tax filings in the US? You're telling me that illegal aliens in the US file income tax returns and yet by some accounts there are anywhere between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens "hiding in the shadows" in the US. Maybe the first order of business for immigration reform would be for the IRS to go after all those illegal alien income tax filers and report them to law enforcement.
Click to expand...

You seem surprised at the dichotomy of America.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're not required to detail your residence of birth on income tax filings in the US? You're telling me that illegal aliens in the US file income tax returns and yet by some accounts there are anywhere between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens "hiding in the shadows" in the US. Maybe the first order of business for immigration reform would be for the IRS to go after all those illegal alien income tax filers and report them to law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Mexicans were imported specifically to destroy the unique American culture and that Liberal decreed status exempts them from enforcement of any sort of ethical standards or laws that apply to Americans. So many of them work for untraceable cash that they send home to Mexico that this has become Mexico's second largest source of revenue.

The absolute best thing the Canadians could do would be to build an enormous blockade at the Canadian Southern border terminus of the much vaunted prospective Mexico-Canada freeway. Otherwise, you will experience the 3rd world devastation that has overtaken America. Do not accept the fate that the Liberal elitists have planned for your country.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
Loans are not guaranteed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


neither is the "right" to vote........."please" read the amendments to the constitution carefully before you tell me it is.

voting by the founders was a privilege based on property and taxes.

the premise of it being a privilege was, that if people with no stake in america were allowed to vote, they would use their voting power to take from those who have more then they do.

the USSC recognized voting as a right.....but it is not a right enumerated by the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
Mexicans were imported specifically to destroy the unique American culture and that exempts them from enforcement of any sort of ethical standards or laws that apply to Americans.

The absolute best thing the Canadians could do would be to build an enormous blockade at the Canadian Southern border terminus of the much vaunted prospective Mexico-Canada freeway. Otherwise, you will experience the 3rd world devastation that has overtaken America. Do not accept what is planned for your country.
Click to expand...

Actually, we have programs for migrant workers, many from Mexico and other Latin American countries, and we welcome upwards of 250,000 new immigrants from all over the world every year - the equivalent of 2.5 million in the US, if you ever got close to our numbers. Still, we have lots of problems with people trying to scam their way in - usually from the Caribbean or Eastern Europe - Romas have been a big problem - but not too many enter the US illegally so they can travel through on their way to Canada. But who knows - too many more years of the Obama economy and they might start heading up here.
 
ernst barkmann said:
neither is the "right" to vote........."please" read the amendments to the constitution carefully before you tell me it is.

voting by the founders was a privilege based on property and taxes.

the premise of it being a privilege was, that if people with no stake in america were allowed to vote, they would use their voting power to take from those who have more then they do.

the USSC recognized voting as a right.....but it is not a right enumerated by the constitution.
Click to expand...

You assumed that I believed that the right to vote existed for all Americans at the signing. I, like you, know that there have been amendments added to the Constitution that NOW confirm every citizen the right to vote.

Caveats to voting exist...but that is irrelevant to the context in which I told you that "loans" were never a constitutionally protected right...were they?

Lets not over look the context of my statement.


the USSC recognized voting as a right.....but it is not a right enumerated by the constitution.
Click to expand...

This statement is wholy incorrect. If the right for former African slaves were afforded citizenship, they were also afforded the right to vote as citizens of the US. That is also beared out the case when women were afforded that same right by amendment.

How could two constitutional amendments afford African Americans and women the right to vote...and the right to vote not apply to all other Americans.

Sometimes reading the Constitution is not enough...one must also know how to apply it.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
You assumed that I believed that the right to vote existed for all Americans at the signing. I, like you, know that there have been amendment add to the Cosntitution that NOW confirm every citizen the right to vote.

Caveats to voting exist...but that is irrelevant to the context in which I told you that "loans" were never a constitutionally protected right...were they?

Lets not over look the context of my statement.
Click to expand...

so let me ask this simple question........and if i get a yes...i will apologize for my error.

did i miss quote you?
 
1750Texan said:
This statement is wholy incorrect. If the right for former African slaves were afforded citizenship, they were also afforded the right to vote as citizens of the US. That is also beared out the case when women were afforded that same right by amendment.

How could two constitutional amendments afford African Americans and women the right to vote...and the right to vote not apply to all other Americans.

Sometimes reading the Constitution is not enough...one must also know how to apply it.
Click to expand...

slaves were not considered citizens, they had no rights at all, 13th freed them ,the 14th amendment, ...which was originaly intended only for slaves, stated if they were born here or naturalized here, they are u.s. citizens and citizens of the state they are in.

since they are considered free citizens, all rights now apply to them....no amendment to the constitution can grant a right, only the court can recognize a right, and that is what they did, the amendments to the constitution, state that the right to vote cannot be denied, because of race, sex.

no where in the constitution do you see a granting or giving of rights...government can give a privilege...but not a right.

the constitution grants powers to the federal government, it does not grant rights to people, it recognizes rights.......the bill of rights are not rights.......they are restrictions on government.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom