They passed legislation in Maine last year to require ID, and now they're trying to get a referrendum on the ballot to repeal it.
This is such a load of crap. It is not discrimination if
everyone has to do it. Getting a non-driver ID is less than most poor people spend per week on cigarettes,
which they are supposed to have an ID to purchase. This country is going insane. Up is down, left is right, backward is forward.
Hell, I support this and I even support literacy tests - provided that they need to actually be standardized and not up to the testers discretion. I would like all potential voters to answer simple questions about how the government works. If you are too ignorant to know how our government functions, then you are too ignorant to make decisions regarding how it should be ran. Perhaps the citizenship test(all immigrants must know these things to be granted citizenship) would be a good minimum baseline.
The ONLY problem with what I said and what they are talking about now with IDs is that once they where both used as weapons of racial discrimination. Even if the base concept is good, its considered tainted due to its historical misuse. The same thing happened with
eugenics - Nazis supported a rather ugly, brutal version of it so the whole idea is unmentionable.
bk3k wrote:Hell, I support this and I even support literacy tests - provided that they need to actually be standardized and not up to the testers discretion. I would like all potential voters to answer simple questions about how the government works. If you are too ignorant to know how our government functions, then you are too ignorant to make decisions regarding how it should be ran. Perhaps the citizenship test(all immigrants must know these things to be granted citizenship) would be a good minimum baseline.
The ONLY problem with what I said and what they are talking about now with IDs is that once they where both used as weapons of racial discrimination. Even if the base concept is good, its considered tainted due to its historical misuse. The same thing happened with eugenics - Nazis supported a rather ugly, brutal version of it so the whole idea is unmentionable.
i like the roman version, you must serve to become a citizen..... for immigrants of the illegal variety. you get kicked out, not to your home country but to west africa or somewhere we can buy land cheap
I mentioned that I support requiring IDs to vote. Then I see the real
game unfold -
Quote:
Gov. Scott Walker's administration is working on finalizing a plan to close as many as 16 offices where people can obtain driver's licenses, in order to expand hours elsewhere and come into compliance with new requirements that voters show photo IDs at the polls.
One Democratic lawmaker said Friday it appeared the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts.
I don't buy their excuse for a moment. I have paid enough attention to Walker to know that what
he claims is "affordable" and "unaffordable" reads like a list of what he likes and dislikes. Whatever it takes to ensure that all valid voters have IDs (and therefore can vote) should be a non-negotiable expense. Call it the cost of weeding out voter fraud - well worth it at twice the price.
I should have known that damn politicians can't resist pressing every advantage including disenfranchising as many "unfriendly" voters as possible. I know many Democrats would do the same thing as Walker too - that does not excuse this kinda thing. The base idea is a good one - but then politicians just cant resist the temptation to corrupt a good idea.
i think the compliance part went with the reason for expanding hours on the other offices
bk3k, one problem I have with your quote:
Quote:
One Democratic lawmaker said Friday it appeared the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts.
You're ready to point the finger at Walker, but this is just a claim. If there is actual evidence, it's one thing, but the Democrats have been far from truthful in their vilifications lately.
Mr. Quick wrote:bk3k, one problem I have with your quote:Quote:
One Democratic lawmaker said Friday it appeared the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts.
You're ready to point the finger at Walker, but this is just a claim. If there is actual evidence, it's one thing, but the Democrats have been far from truthful in their vilifications lately.
Well you dismiss this based on an established pattern of behavior with Democrats being untruthful. Valid enough. I don't know that it is in fact going on, but I think its quite likely since it at the very least does follow established patterns of Republican behavior. Don't assume the best of intentions just because he is from your party.
The idea of voter fraud and disenfranchisement may not be popular with the majority of the base of either party(I assume you also oppose this on principal), but you have enough in either party in the right places that feel "the cause is just enough" to justify this without thinking. These types care very little for any fair democratic process that does result in their victory. So the rest of us must be all the more diligent.
Let me show this from another perspective -
Quote:
One Republican lawmaker said Friday it appeared the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Republican areas and expanding hours for those in Democratic districts.
Now if you read that instead, I bet you would think a bit different. Never mind WHO is making the claim - as if either side has a monopoly of professional lairs - and instead focus on what is apparently happening. If you are closing offices in several areas that favor one party and expand services in another area favoring a different party... I think you get what is involved.
They are wishing to make it more difficult for some and easier for others to meet the requirements to vote. Most likely this is hoping that the first group of voters are not dedicated enough to make the extra journey/effort and will instead not vote at all. Well that isn't so far fetched considering that its much harder getting Americans off their asses to vote than it is to get them to not bother. Some lower income people and/or disabled may not be able to easily accommodate the additional trip.
Now if this was (as claimed) about saving money, then would not it be more cost effective to expand services in more densely populated areas like cities and cut offices in less densely populated suburbs/rural areas? Oh wait... that typically would benefit Democrats would it not? But it actually would be more "cost effective"... supposing that is what one actually cared about. I would not support such a move none the less. I believe elections should be won on issues and the will of the people, not by doing anything possible to discourage/diminish your opponents voters.
I actually like the ID requirement, as I mentioned. However if they are requiring IDs to vote, then the state now has a duty to do what it takes so that everyone has an ID. Closing any of these offices is now completely unacceptable. Leave it to politicians to corrupt a concept intended to reduce election fraud.
well i didnt post origonally because its hard to really give an acurate responce without knowing what is really going on. to do that you'd need to take a look at the offices that were closed. were they failing? were they losing money or being run poorly? was this in the plans for years to close them down and its just bad timing? without knowing the facts about the offices and what was going on at them you can't really tell wether this was a shady republican or just bad timing on the closing of these offices. it very well could be a repuplican who is trying to do something to keep people from getting voters id cards. or it could just be something that was needed to be done all along and just hit on bad timing. sad part is most people wont be able to get there hands on the information needed to find this out so most democrats will say its about desinfranchisement and most repulicans will just say the democrats are trying to stir up trouble.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
bk3k, I do look at things more objectively than you may think. The reason I mentioned fact that it was a Democrat making the claim based on the appearance of impropriety was because he was making the claim against someone of the opposing party, and one that has had them upset since the day he was elected. No doubt it happens on both sides of the isle, but knowing the way you usually are with things, I was actually surprised that you were ready to take that and go with it, without looking further, which is why I brought it up. It's one thing to take a claim and look into it, it's another to take it and accept it for it's face value. As I said, if it's true, then it's wrong, but I wouldn't even give it any weight unless there was better evidence.
so in CT they are curtailing services at dmv offices and making the hubs for full service in the inner city areas. Should I assume that with a proven track record of voter fraud in the urban areas of CT that it is our governors intent to make it easier to serve democrat areas?
