|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 23, 2014 6:18:34 GMT
Progressives' determination to control others' actions through laws enacted by the nanny state--just not to allow those laws to intrude upon their own lives--should be rather evident.
From Jim Geraghty in National Review Online:
Truth in advertising: As regarding the criticism in the article directed toward FEHB healthcare plans by many members of Congress--"if not quite a 'Cadillac” plan, then [it is] 'the best Buick on the block'"--I have a similar plan. But this cannot vitiate the fact that there is a great deal of hypocrisy--"Do as I say, not as I do"--attendant to many of these matters mentioned in the article.
Oh, here is the link: The Progressive Aristocracy | National Review Online
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 23, 2014 14:39:55 GMT
Progressives' determination to control others' actions through laws enacted by the nanny state--just not to allow those laws to intrude upon their own lives--should be rather evident.
I see absolutely no difference between this and the actions of the "social conseratives" in their political agendas.
Social conservatives oppose equality in marriage for same-sex couples while same-sex marriage doesn't affect opposite-sex marriage or the social institution of marriage based upon religious or other philosphical beliefs one iota.
Social conservatives oppose the established Right of a Woman to make her own decisions related to abortion even though what a woman chooses to do has no effect upon them at all.
Social conservatives support Voter ID laws that overwhelmingly disenfranchise poor minority US citizens where only about 8% of "white" Americans (the base of the Republican Party) already have state issued photo ID while 18% of Hispanics and 25% of African-American US citizens don't ignoring the fact that voter impersonation at the polls, the only thing Voter ID laws address, is all but non-existant in the United States.
Social conservatives oppose ending the War On Drugs that wouldn't typically don't affect social conservatives but do adversely affect African-Americans disproportionately in the United States.
Explain the differences between Progressive Liberals and Social Conservatives when it comes to "nanny state government" telling people what they can and can't do under the law where it doesn't negatively affect their own political agenda. Both advocate "nanny state" government.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 23, 2014 21:28:09 GMT
Progressives' determination to control others' actions through laws enacted by the nanny state--just not to allow those laws to intrude upon their own lives--should be rather evident.
I see absolutely no difference between this and the actions of the "social conseratives" in their political agendas.
Social conservatives oppose equality in marriage for same-sex couples while same-sex marriage doesn't affect opposite-sex marriage or the social institution of marriage based upon religious or other philosphical beliefs one iota.
Social conservatives oppose the established Right of a Woman to make her own decisions related to abortion even though what a woman chooses to do has no effect upon them at all.
Social conservatives support Voter ID laws that overwhelmingly disenfranchise poor minority US citizens where only about 8% of "white" Americans (the base of the Republican Party) already have state issued photo ID while 18% of Hispanics and 25% of African-American US citizens don't ignoring the fact that voter impersonation at the polls, the only thing Voter ID laws address, is all but non-existant in the United States.
Social conservatives oppose ending the War On Drugs that wouldn't typically don't affect social conservatives but do adversely affect African-Americans disproportionately in the United States.
Explain the differences between Progressive Liberals and Social Conservatives when it comes to "nanny state government" telling people what they can and can't do under the law where it doesn't negatively affect their own political agenda. Both advocate "nanny state" government.
Since I simply do not have the time to address each of these points individually, with the requisite depth of thought, I will consider just one of these, viz. the matter of abortion. To abort (i,e. kill) an unborn child--please note that we are not merely speaking of a zygote here, but an uborn child that is recognizably human--is to violate the most fundamental right of that third party: the right to life. If an intruder comes into Joe Smith's home and murders poor Joe--and if you do not even know Joe--then his being murdered has "no effect" at all upon you. Nonetheless, one would hope that you would prefer that such an action should be deemed illegal, due to the horrid effect upon an innocent third party. In any case, you appear to be attempting to transmute this thread into a rant against "social conservatives"; which is not the point of the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 6:18:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 24, 2014 10:28:52 GMT
Since I simply do not have the time to address each of these points individually, with the requisite depth of thought, I will consider just one of these, viz. the matter of abortion. To abort (i,e. kill) an unborn child--please note that we are not merely speaking of a zygote here, but an uborn child that is recognizably human--is to violate the most fundamental right of that third party: the right to life. If an intruder comes into Joe Smith's home and murders poor Joe--and if you do not even know Joe--then his being murdered has "no effect" at all upon you. Nonetheless, one would hope that you would prefer that such an action should be deemed illegal, due to the horrid effect upon an innocent third party. In any case, you appear to be attempting to transmute this thread into a rant against "social conservatives"; which is not the point of the thread.
Late term abortion, except to preserve the life or health of the woman, is already prohibited under the law and that is not what the social-conservative anti-abortionists are trying to address when they pass laws that close abortion clinics to deny a woman access to abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. Their goal is to stop all abortions starting at conception and not to protect the life of a viable fetus.
No I'm not trying to change the topic of the thread but instead I merely point out that there is no fundamental difference between to progressive-liberal and the social-conservative when it comes to promoting a "nanny-state" government. While they have different agendas they both want nanny-state government that is intrusive upon the lives of those that hold different political ideologies but is not intrusive upon their own lives based upon their political ideology.
Democrats and Republicans are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 24, 2014 10:40:43 GMT
.....and this has absolutely nothing to do with "Voter Impersonation at the Polls" that the "Voter ID" laws address.
This has to do with duplicate voting which is completely unrelated to voter impersonation at the polls. There are numerous forms of voter and election fraud but the one that (statistically) doesn't occur is voter impersonation at the polls. Perhaps the two most notable "close" elections were the 2000 Florida presidential election where the final difference was only about 500 votes and the 2004 Washington gubenatorial election where the final difference was 129 votes and in neither of those elections was "voter impersonation" alleged to have occurred.
There is no rational basis for the Voter ID laws as voter impersonation at the polls, the only potential issue of concern that these laws address, statistically doesn't happen in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 18:52:40 GMT
Since I simply do not have the time to address each of these points individually, with the requisite depth of thought, I will consider just one of these, viz. the matter of abortion. To abort (i,e. kill) an unborn child--please note that we are not merely speaking of a zygote here, but an uborn child that is recognizably human--is to violate the most fundamental right of that third party: the right to life. If an intruder comes into Joe Smith's home and murders poor Joe--and if you do not even know Joe--then his being murdered has "no effect" at all upon you. Nonetheless, one would hope that you would prefer that such an action should be deemed illegal, due to the horrid effect upon an innocent third party. In any case, you appear to be attempting to transmute this thread into a rant against "social conservatives"; which is not the point of the thread.
Late term abortion, except to preserve the life or health of the woman, is already prohibited under the law and that is not what the social-conservative anti-abortionists are trying to address when they pass laws that close abortion clinics to deny a woman access to abortion at anytime during the pregnancy. Their goal is to stop all abortions starting at conception and not to protect the life of a viable fetus.
No I'm not trying to change the topic of the thread but instead I merely point out that there is no fundamental difference between to progressive-liberal and the social-conservative when it comes to promoting a "nanny-state" government. While they have different agendas they both want nanny-state government that is intrusive upon the lives of those that hold different political ideologies but is not intrusive upon their own lives based upon their political ideology.
Democrats and Republicans are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
I think it may be disingenuous (or, at least, a bit sloppy) to speak of allowing abortions for the "mental health" of the mother, since that term may be used so broadly as to cover any strong disinclination toward accepting the duties and responsibilities of motherhood: A mother's "mental health" might be seriously impaired--which is to say, she might be quite disturbed--if she were required to alter her social life, and take on the necessary duties and responsibilities. And I am unaware of any conservatives who wish to make laws that apply to others only--laws from which they (and/or their close relatives) are personally exempted. However, if you know of any, you may be assured that I will oppose them, also. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 18:56:59 GMT
.....and this has absolutely nothing to do with "Voter Impersonation at the Polls" that the "Voter ID" laws address.
This has to do with duplicate voting which is completely unrelated to voter impersonation at the polls. There are numerous forms of voter and election fraud but the one that (statistically) doesn't occur is voter impersonation at the polls. Perhaps the two most notable "close" elections were the 2000 Florida presidential election where the final difference was only about 500 votes and the 2004 Washington gubenatorial election where the final difference was 129 votes and in neither of those elections was "voter impersonation" alleged to have occurred.
There is no rational basis for the Voter ID laws as voter impersonation at the polls, the only potential issue of concern that these laws address, statistically doesn't happen in the United States.
Perhaps you could go to Washington, and complain to your congressperson about these proposed laws. (Of course, you would have to be able to show your photo ID in order to get into the Capitol building. And if you fly there, you would need a photo ID in order to board the plane.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 25, 2014 0:49:17 GMT
Perhaps you could go to Washington, and complain to your congressperson about these proposed laws. (Of course, you would have to be able to show your photo ID in order to get into the Capitol building. And if you fly there, you would need a photo ID in order to board the plane.)
Voting laws that are intended to disenfranchise poor minority citizens of the United States are not being passed by the US Congress but instead are being passed by Republican State Legislatures. Of course we don't have those laws in the State of Washington because a poor black US citizen can take the bus or walk to their local representative's office and they don't need to show ID to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 25, 2014 16:50:42 GMT
Perhaps you could go to Washington, and complain to your congressperson about these proposed laws. (Of course, you would have to be able to show your photo ID in order to get into the Capitol building. And if you fly there, you would need a photo ID in order to board the plane.)
Voting laws that are intended to disenfranchise poor minority citizens of the United States are not being passed by the US Congress but instead are being passed by Republican State Legislatures. Of course we don't have those laws in the State of Washington because a poor black US citizen can take the bus or walk to their local representative's office and they don't need to show ID to anyone.
What is wrong with "Republican state legislatures" that prefer for voters to be precisely who they claim to be? (Note: It is typical of most states that pass such Voter-ID laws to supply free IDs to anyone requesting this, in order to ensure that no one may be prevented from voting merely because he or she was unable to purchase the obligatory identification. What could possibly be wrong with that?) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 26, 2014 6:48:20 GMT
What is wrong with "Republican state legislatures" that prefer for voters to be precisely who they claim to be? (Note: It is typical of most states that pass such Voter-ID laws to supply free IDs to anyone requesting this, in order to ensure that no one may be prevented from voting merely because he or she was unable to purchase the obligatory identification. What could possibly be wrong with that?)
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that there's no significant evidence that voters aren't who they claim to be?
If there was a problem with voter impersonation at the poll we'd have a lot of evidence of it. For example if the "legitimate" voter showed up and went to vote they the poll worker would inform them that their "vote" had already been cast and there would be an obviously forged signature in their place. Or if a person attempting to commit voter impersonation went to the poll after the actual citizen voted the poll worker would be able to identify them. The fact is that this isn't happening so why would anyone be concerned about it happening.
(While the "ID" might be free the documentation required to obtain the ID often is not. For example Texas requires "proof of citizenship" which can only be obtained by purchasing it from the government and that can cost from $25 to $50 for the person to obtain. Requiring a person to purchase a document from the government, such as a COLB. imposes a "de facto" poll tax on the person and that violates the Constitution.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 26, 2014 20:17:40 GMT
What is wrong with "Republican state legislatures" that prefer for voters to be precisely who they claim to be? (Note: It is typical of most states that pass such Voter-ID laws to supply free IDs to anyone requesting this, in order to ensure that no one may be prevented from voting merely because he or she was unable to purchase the obligatory identification. What could possibly be wrong with that?)
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that there's no significant evidence that voters aren't who they claim to be?
If there was a problem with voter impersonation at the poll we'd have a lot of evidence of it. For example if the "legitimate" voter showed up and went to vote they the poll worker would inform them that their "vote" had already been cast and there would be an obviously forged signature in their place. Or if a person attempting to commit voter impersonation went to the poll after the actual citizen voted the poll worker would be able to identify them. The fact is that this isn't happening so why would anyone be concerned about it happening.
(While the "ID" might be free the documentation required to obtain the ID often is not. For example Texas requires "proof of citizenship" which can only be obtained by purchasing it from the government and that can cost from $25 to $50 for the person to obtain. Requiring a person to purchase a document from the government, such as a COLB. imposes a "de facto" poll tax on the person and that violates the Constitution.)
(1) I do not believe that requiring proper documentation amounts to a "poll tax" (whether de facto or otherwise). (2) Why not simply look for a way of obviating the entire problem--say, by requiring the government to provide free documentation, upon which the voter ID might be based--or would you simply prefer to say no to any controls, no matter how benign they might be? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 27, 2014 9:52:19 GMT
(1) I do not believe that requiring proper documentation amounts to a "poll tax" (whether de facto or otherwise). (2) Why not simply look for a way of obviating the entire problem--say, by requiring the government to provide free documentation, upon which the voter ID might be based--or would you simply prefer to say no to any controls, no matter how benign they might be?
1) Your opinion is at odds with the US Supreme Court that ruled in Harper v Virginia Board of Elections that the imposition of any government fees, which would include the necessity of a person to pay for a certified copy of their birth certificate, is a "poll tax" and violates the Right to Vote of the person.
2) Republicans would come unglued if the Federal Government required the states to furnish certified copies of birth certificates free of charge on demand.
There is an easier solution and some states have adopted it in providing "free" voter ID cards. They don't require proof of citizenthip (which is actually a voter registration issue and not a voter impersonation issue) and a person can obtain their free voter ID card without having to purchase any documents. I believe conditions are imposed like bringing in a recent utility bill with the person's name and address on it. Many states also allow the use of identification like employee identification and college student ID cards along with other forms like a drivers license (please note that my drivers license does not state I'm a US citizen).
Or, more pragmatically, we can simply not require proof of identity when voting because voter impersonation isn't happening!!!! The cases are so rare that no elections have ever cited voter impersonation as being an issue that could have affected the outcome. Once again not a single claim of voter impersonation in the 2000 Florida presidential vote that was determined by about 500 votes and no claims of voter impersonation in the 2004 Washington gubenatorial vote that was determined by 129 votes. Two of the closest "elections" of importance in the United States where millions and millions of votes were cast and not a claim of even one case of voter impersonation.
Finally, we know exactly why these Republican voting laws are being passed because some of those responsible have come forward to reveal the purpose behind them. Top state GOP leaders have expressly stated that the purpose of these laws is to reduce the African-American and Hispanic vote because roughly 95% of blacks and 75% of Latinos vote for Democrats. The laws are exclusively about reducing the vote of minorities that vote against Republicans because of the anti-minority political agenda of the Republican Party. They are "Jim Crow" voting laws with the implicit goal of reducing the vote of US citizens that are a part of a racial/ethnic minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 28, 2014 0:03:21 GMT
(1) I do not believe that requiring proper documentation amounts to a "poll tax" (whether de facto or otherwise). (2) Why not simply look for a way of obviating the entire problem--say, by requiring the government to provide free documentation, upon which the voter ID might be based--or would you simply prefer to say no to any controls, no matter how benign they might be?
1) Your opinion is at odds with the US Supreme Court that ruled in Harper v Virginia Board of Elections that the imposition of any government fees, which would include the necessity of a person to pay for a certified copy of their birth certificate, is a "poll tax" and violates the Right to Vote of the person.
2) Republicans would come unglued if the Federal Government required the states to furnish certified copies of birth certificates free of charge on demand.
There is an easier solution and some states have adopted it in providing "free" voter ID cards. They don't require proof of citizenthip (which is actually a voter registration issue and not a voter impersonation issue) and a person can obtain their free voter ID card without having to purchase any documents. I believe conditions are imposed like bringing in a recent utility bill with the person's name and address on it. Many states also allow the use of identification like employee identification and college student ID cards along with other forms like a drivers license (please note that my drivers license does not state I'm a US citizen).
Or, more pragmatically, we can simply not require proof of identity when voting because voter impersonation isn't happening!!!! The cases are so rare that no elections have ever cited voter impersonation as being an issue that could have affected the outcome. Once again not a single claim of voter impersonation in the 2000 Florida presidential vote that was determined by about 500 votes and no claims of voter impersonation in the 2004 Washington gubenatorial vote that was determined by 129 votes. Two of the closest "elections" of importance in the United States where millions and millions of votes were cast and not a claim of even one case of voter impersonation.
Finally, we know exactly why these Republican voting laws are being passed because some of those responsible have come forward to reveal the purpose behind them. Top state GOP leaders have expressly stated that the purpose of these laws is to reduce the African-American and Hispanic vote because roughly 95% of blacks and 75% of Latinos vote for Democrats. The laws are exclusively about reducing the vote of minorities that vote against Republicans because of the anti-minority political agenda of the Republican Party. They are "Jim Crow" voting laws with the implicit goal of reducing the vote of US citizens that are a part of a racial/ethnic minority.
Your citation of a SCOTUS case (specifically, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections) is just as unimpressive to me as some other Suprreme Court decisions are (most notably, Dred Scott v. Sanford; or Plessy v. Ferguson). To allege that we may be certain that an election decided by a mere 129 votes could not possibly have been tainted by fraud--and this, merely because no lawsuit was filed to try to overturn these election results--is a non sequitur, at best. Sometimes, politicians--despite their (usually) self-absorbed nature--simply would prefer not to upset the apple cart, by leaving no one occupying an important position for many months, as the lawsuit drags on. And I am not quite sure what good an ID card might be if it offers no proof of citizenship. Note: Whereas some people may be animated by cynical motives, as regarding the matter at hand--it should probably be expected that politicians who would prefer electoral victory over electoral defeat would not welcome the votes of blocs that are likely to go the other way, by percentages as high as 75 percent (or even 95 percent)--I would be very careful, I think, about relying heavily upon an appeal to motive, as that is a logical fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 28, 2014 15:51:52 GMT
Your citation of a SCOTUS case (specifically, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections) is just as unimpressive to me as some other Suprreme Court decisions are (most notably, Dred Scott v. Sanford; or Plessy v. Ferguson). To allege that we may be certain that an election decided by a mere 129 votes could not possibly have been tainted by fraud--and this, merely because no lawsuit was filed to try to overturn these election results--is a non sequitur, at best. Sometimes, politicians--despite their (usually) self-absorbed nature--simply would prefer not to upset the apple cart, by leaving no one occupying an important position for many months, as the lawsuit drags on. And I am not quite sure what good an ID card might be if it offers no proof of citizenship. Note: Whereas some people may be animated by cynical motives, as regarding the matter at hand--it should probably be expected that politicians who would prefer electoral victory over electoral defeat would not welcome the votes of blocs that are likely to go the other way, by percentages as high as 75 percent (or even 95 percent)--I would be very careful, I think, about relying heavily upon an appeal to motive, as that is a logical fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
No one stated that there weren't issues related to potential fraud in the 2004 WA gubenatorial election and, in fact, there was a lawsuit that alleged that fraud occurred, but the allegations did not include a claim that voter impersonation at the polls occurred which is the only thing Voter ID Cards address.
"Qualification To Vote" issues such as being under-age, a non-citizen and/or an ex-felon where the person isn't qualified to vote is a Voter Registration issue and not a Voter Impersonation issue. When registering to vote a person must sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that they are of age, a US citizen, and are not an ex-felon that would be prohibited from voting in a federal election. To my knowledge the greatest problem we have with this relates to ex-felons that don't realize their Right to Vote is under suspension (I say suspension because it can be re-instated) and they often have government issued ID such as a drivers license. If we want to address "qualification to vote" concerns then this is accomplished by addressing verification of voter registration and not voter impersonation at the polls because voter impersonation at the polls is statistically all but non-existant.
As I mentioned the "motive" by Republicans, as expressed by a few insiders related to the Republican voting laws being enacted, is about reducing the number of votes from blocks of US citizens that vote for Democrats historically. The problem is that the "blocks" they are targeting are racial/ethnic blocks of voters which results in racial/ethnic discrimination and that is "racist" in nature. The motive is political but the result is racist.
|
|
