• 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!

Obama’s Final Whopper as President

JasperL said:
I don't know - millions of citizens not having them, often been voting for decades, is one problem....

But that's just evading the question. moving the goal posts. We got along with no problems for decades in Tennessee with expansive ID lists, like Canada. If the change is to require 100s of thousands to jump through some new hoop to vote, get one of these FEW PHOTO IDs, you'd think the proponents could provide some justification, supported by evidence, for such a big change. That you can't is sort of my point and the point of people opposed to these new rules.
Click to expand...

I woukd not be so worried about asking "100s of thousands to jump through some new hoops" to perform their civic privilege. But with 5 milliins of illegal immigrants in the country I don't think a rational citizen would want to run the risk of the diluting effect, unless they had a personal interest in the dilution.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know - millions of citizens not having them, often been voting for decades, is one problem....

But that's just evading the question. moving the goal posts. We got along with no problems for decades in Tennessee with expansive ID lists, like Canada. If the change is to require 100s of thousands to jump through some new hoop to vote, get one of these FEW PHOTO IDs, you'd think the proponents could provide some justification, supported by evidence, for such a big change. That you can't is sort of my point and the point of people opposed to these new rules.
Click to expand...

Before 9/11/01 we didn't need a photo ID to fly. Now we need a photo ID and have to go through intrusive searches.

Just a few years ago, we could go back and forth between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. Not any more.

Security requirements unfortunately change over time.
 
americanwoman said:
Eh, I have a feeling though when it comes down to actual voting in Mexico in certain places, certain liberties are taken. ;)
Click to expand...

Only natural born citizens can join the military, or hold any public office.
 
Gill said:
I guess someone forgot to tell Obama that MOST countries in the world, including Mexico and Canada, require voter ID with a photo on it. Mexico's ID even requires a thumb print.

View attachment 67212843

Britain was one of the few industrialized countries, besides the United States, that did not require a voter ID. That changed last month because they were experiencing so much voter fraud. In a recent Washington Post poll, 66% of Independents, 60% of Democrats, 65% of African Americans, and 64% of Hispanics favored some type of voter ID.

And in case you are one of those that don't believe voter fraud is an issue, I suggest you look at this link.

Obama also seems to forget that it was Democrats in the south that implemented Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting, but of course, history was never his strong point.

[FONT=&]Read more at: Obama Lies on Voter ID: Many Countries Require It | National Review[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Canada has voter ID? News to me. I must have voted illegally these past 40-some years.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Canada doess NOT insist on photo ID. You can still vote as long as someone vouches for you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we so backwards we actually put an 'X' on a paper ballot, and somebody counts the slips of paper, too.
 
No, no, no...you're cherry picking here...:poke at issues that really aren't there.

The question put to then President Obama at his last press conference was this:

Long before today you’ve been considered a rights President. Under your watch, people have said that you have expanded the rubber band of inclusion. And with the election and the incoming administration, people are saying that rubber band has recoiled and maybe is even broken. And I’m taking you back to a time on Air Force One going to Selma, Alabama, when you said your job was to close the gaps that remain. And with that, what gaps still remain when it comes to rights issues on the table?
Click to expand...

Obama gave a long, detail answer because it really was a two-part question (but I only quoted the part that's relevant to the topic at hand). But in answering near the end when speaking on issues of inequality, that's when he said this:

I worry about, as I said in response to a previous question, making sure that the basic machinery of our democracy works better. We are the only country in the advanced world that makes it harder to vote rather than easier. And that dates back -- there's an ugly history to that that we should not be shy about talking about.
Click to expand...

And then the report followed up with...

Q: Voting rights?
Click to expand...

Towhich Obama responded with...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm talking about voting rights. The reason that we are the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote is it traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery. And it became sort of acceptable to restrict the franchise. And that's not who we are. That shouldn't be who we are. That's not when America works best.

So I hope that people pay a lot of attention to making sure that everybody has a chance to vote. Make it easier, not harder. This whole notion of election -- of voting fraud, this is something that has constantly been disproved. This is fake news -- the notion that there are a whole bunch of people out there who are going out there and are not eligible to vote and want to vote. We have the opposite problem. We have a whole bunch of people who are eligible to vote who don't vote. And so the idea that we'd put in place a whole bunch of barriers to people voting doesn't make sense.

And then, as I've said before, political gerrymandering that makes your vote matter less because politicians have decided you live in a district where everybody votes the same way you do so that these aren't competitive races, and we get 90 percent Democratic districts, 90 percent Republican districts -- that's bad for our democracy, too. I worry about that.
Click to expand...

So, Obama's response wasn't in direct response to voter IDs at all. It was about the systematic restrictive efforts and/or manufactured problems that keep coming up within our democratic election processes.
 
BrewerBob said:
I don't have a huge problem with voter ID if it is free and can be applied for and issued at the polling stations. The ID issued at the polling station would likely be a temp one allowing the voter to vote that particular day with the more sophisticated ID being sent in the mail.
Click to expand...

ID should be free to anyone and it should be required to register to vote. I'm not sure that I'm a fan of the idea of issuing ID at a polling station. This is something that demands proof of identity and polling stations are not normally staffed by people who are qualified and accountable for such a task.
 
Removable Mind said:
Maybe his claim can be classified as an "Alternative Fact"????
Click to expand...

Do you think he intentionally lied? I don't. A fact-checker told him that. Somebody screwed up. THAT is an alternative fact . . . A reliance on a credible source that ends up being wrong.
 
MaggieD said:
Do you think he intentionally lied? I don't. A fact-checker told him that. Somebody screwed up. THAT is an alternative fact . . . A reliance on a credible source that ends up being wrong.
Click to expand...

Maggie, at this point in time, when a person who holds high office, gets pissed about being called out on some comment or action - or something is said about them that they dislike - will be called "fake news".

If they refute something said about them, or videoed - they'll can simply reply with an "alternative fact (meaning just because I made it up doesn't mean it's not true)".

And of course the old, "he or she is a blatant liar", will still exist. But to the person who actually lied, and usually lies are intentionally, henceforth they'll claim the counter-reaction to their lie is "fake news" and then try to fix the lie with an "alternative fact". :shrug:

There are people who say things without knowing whether or not what they said is true, but might "think it's true" - I guess one could call a person like that disseminating misinformation.

Also "accountability for one's actions who holds public office" will now be something the kids will read about in their history books as a political myth or falsehood, that never really existed.

We have moved into an era where even with hardcore evidence - we have politicians who will publicly deny an accusation while watching a video of themselves say or do whatever they claim didn't happen. They'll go to their deathbed denying.

And We the People will scratch our heads and say..."gosh, what happened, how's that possible to deny something when there's multiple sources that have actually videoed or made audio recordings of the even in question?" Then We the People will shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well." And forget about it.

Sad days are ahead for everybody.
 
Objective Voice said:
No, no, no...you're cherry picking here...:poke at issues that really aren't there.

The question put to then President Obama at his last press conference was this:



Obama gave a long, detail answer because it really was a two-part question (but I only quoted the part that's relevant to the topic at hand). But in answering near the end when speaking on issues of inequality, that's when he said this:



And then the report followed up with...



Towhich Obama responded with...



So, Obama's response wasn't in direct response to voter IDs at all. It was about the systematic restrictive efforts and/or manufactured problems that keep coming up within our democratic election processes.
Click to expand...

When he says we currently -- and he did say we currently do so -- "make it harder to vote," what could he have been referring to BUT voter ID laws?
 
Removable Mind said:
Maggie, at this point in time, when a person who holds high office, gets pissed about being called out on some comment or action - or something is said about them that they dislike - will be called "fake news".

If they refute something said about them, or videoed - they'll can simply reply with an "alternative fact (meaning just because I made it up doesn't mean it's not true)".

And of course the old, "he or she is a blatant liar", will still exist. But to the person who actually lied, and usually lies are intentionally, henceforth they'll claim the counter-reaction to their lie is "fake news" and then try to fix the lie with an "alternative fact". :shrug:

There are people who say things without knowing whether or not what they said is true, but might "think it's true" - I guess one could call a person like that disseminating misinformation.

Also "accountability for one's actions who holds public office" will now be something the kids will read about in their history books as a political myth or falsehood, that never really existed.

We have moved into an era where even with hardcore evidence - we have politicians who will publicly deny an accusation while watching a video of themselves say or do whatever they claim didn't happen. They'll go to their deathbed denying.

And We the People will scratch our heads and say..."gosh, what happened, how's that possible to deny something when there's multiple sources that have actually videoed or made audio recordings of the even in question?" Then We the People will shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well." And forget about it.

Sad days are ahead for everybody.
Click to expand...


"...We have moved into an era where even with hardcore evidence - we have politicians who will publicly deny an accusation while watching a video of themselves say or do whatever they claim didn't happen. They'll go to their deathbed denying. "

That is the most insightful explanation of "Trumpitis" existing. Ironically, as I write this I am listening to a news story about our premier, again, standing up to criticism over her party portion of her salary [she was getting paid an additional $50K by the Liberal Party], an on-going story for going on two months now.
 
Gill said:
I guess someone forgot to tell Obama that MOST countries in the world, including Mexico and Canada, require voter ID with a photo on it. Mexico's ID even requires a thumb print.

View attachment 67212843

Britain was one of the few industrialized countries, besides the United States, that did not require a voter ID. That changed last month because they were experiencing so much voter fraud. In a recent Washington Post poll, 66% of Independents, 60% of Democrats, 65% of African Americans, and 64% of Hispanics favored some type of voter ID.

And in case you are one of those that don't believe voter fraud is an issue, I suggest you look at this link.

Obama also seems to forget that it was Democrats in the south that implemented Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting, but of course, history was never his strong point.

Read more at: Obama Lies on Voter ID: Many Countries Require It | National Review
Click to expand...

Your post is quite the whopper itself.

Most advanced democracies do not make it harder for people to vote. Notice how voter ID isn't included in that sentence?
 
Removable Mind said:
Maggie, at this point in time, when a person who holds high office, gets pissed about being called out on some comment or action - or something is said about them that they dislike - will be called "fake news".

If they refute something said about them, or videoed - they'll can simply reply with an "alternative fact (meaning just because I made it up doesn't mean it's not true)".

And of course the old, "he or she is a blatant liar", will still exist. But to the person who actually lied, and usually lies are intentionally, henceforth they'll claim the counter-reaction to their lie is "fake news" and then try to fix the lie with an "alternative fact". :shrug:

There are people who say things without knowing whether or not what they said is true, but might "think it's true" - I guess one could call a person like that disseminating misinformation.

Also "accountability for one's actions who holds public office" will now be something the kids will read about in their history books as a political myth or falsehood, that never really existed.

We have moved into an era where even with hardcore evidence - we have politicians who will publicly deny an accusation while watching a video of themselves say or do whatever they claim didn't happen. They'll go to their deathbed denying.

And We the People will scratch our heads and say..."gosh, what happened, how's that possible to deny something when there's multiple sources that have actually videoed or made audio recordings of the even in question?" Then We the People will shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well." And forget about it.

Sad days are ahead for everybody.
Click to expand...

I agree with enough of what you've said to give you a Like...which I always "like" to do.

RM, we are slowly understanding that we can no longer believe our lying eyes. And realizing that anonymous sources provide a free pass to say anything we wish with impunity. And that our fourth estate is not to be trusted ... that they are biased and should be taken with a pound of salt - not just a grain.

And yes. Sad days are everywhere.
 
joG said:
I woukd not be so worried about asking "100s of thousands to jump through some new hoops" to perform their civic privilege. But with 5 milliins of illegal immigrants in the country I don't think a rational citizen would want to run the risk of the diluting effect, unless they had a personal interest in the dilution.
Click to expand...

That's not actually an answer.

In the first place, "photo ID" does NOT prove citizenship, and ID at the polls is not intended to prove eligibility to vote. Non citizen can and do get "photo ID." Felons can and do get "photo ID." Determining whether someone is eligible to vote is the purpose of registration. All ID does at the polls is show, "yes, this person who the officials have already determined IS eligible - that's ME."

FWIW, voting is a right, not a privilege.
 
Gill said:
Before 9/11/01 we didn't need a photo ID to fly. Now we need a photo ID and have to go through intrusive searches.

Just a few years ago, we could go back and forth between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. Not any more.

Security requirements unfortunately change over time.
Click to expand...

Pointing out why we need ID for other things isn't an argument why we need "photo ID" to vote. :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with enough of what you've said to give you a Like...which I always "like" to do.

RM, we are slowly understanding that we can no longer believe our lying eyes. And realizing that anonymous sources provide a free pass to say anything we wish with impunity. And that our fourth estate is not to be trusted ... that they are biased and should be taken with a pound of salt - not just a grain.

And yes. Sad days are everywhere.
Click to expand...

I hear ya Maggie...

As the old saying goes, "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can't change, change the things that I can, AND THE WISDOM to know the difference.", would be a wonderful ability to have. We need this ability more now than ever. For a lot of us...well, that's a very difficult quality, characteristic, or attribute to have.

When there is no way to make evident that a given "truth" is the true truth"...then what the hell do we do?
 
MaggieD said:
Do you think he intentionally lied? I don't. A fact-checker told him that. Somebody screwed up. THAT is an alternative fact . . . A reliance on a credible source that ends up being wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not clear what he said that was untrue. He did not mention voter ID requirements at all, just made a general comment that the U.S. makes it harder to vote, which we've done in recent years.
 
JasperL said:
That's not actually an answer.

In the first place, "photo ID" does NOT prove citizenship, and ID at the polls is not intended to prove eligibility to vote. Non citizen can and do get "photo ID." Felons can and do get "photo ID." Determining whether someone is eligible to vote is the purpose of registration. All ID does at the polls is show, "yes, this person who the officials have already determined IS eligible - that's ME."

FWIW, voting is a right, not a privilege.
Click to expand...

Of course there can be photo ID that is for other things.
 
joG said:
Of course there can be photo ID that is for other things.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. What "other things"? It appears you're moving the goal posts, again.

You were justifying photo ID because of illegals and the fear of "dilution" - illegals voting presumably - but that's just NOT a valid reason, as the courts have repeatedly pointed out for the reasons stated.
 
JasperL said:
I don't understand your point. What "other things"? It appears you're moving the goal posts, again.

You were justifying photo ID because of illegals and the fear of "dilution" - illegals voting presumably - but that's just NOT a valid reason, as the courts have repeatedly pointed out for the reasons stated.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I didn't realize you would think that we were talking about what photo ID should be used.
 
JasperL said:
Pointing out why we need ID for other things isn't an argument why we need "photo ID" to vote. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, ensuring that only eligible people vote is no big deal. As long as you can buy beer you are good to go, am I right??? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom