Secret Service blocks #BlackLivesMatter protestors at Clinton event
102 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48442793]Yeah except there's something to be said about socialism and it's that it looks great on paper and in a snazzy speech but it fails in practice and a lot of Sanders policies could easily go that way, and it's simply overlooked by leftists unwilling to accept that possibility because of things like "HEY FREE COLLEGE YEA."[/QUOTE]
i mean it's great and all that you want the country to die but for all our sake please don't vote
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48442793]Yeah except there's something to be said about socialism and it's that it looks great on paper and in a snazzy speech but it fails in practice and a lot of Sanders policies could easily go that way, and it's simply overlooked by leftists unwilling to accept that possibility because of things like "HEY FREE COLLEGE YEA."[/QUOTE]
There's dozens of European countries that have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded college. It's a very simple and very helpful system for redistributing wealth.
The idea that it's impossible to have nationally-funded college education and nationally-funded healthcare is a joke. The burden on taxpayers would be minor in comparison to both the quality of life improvements and the massive increase in socioeconomic mobility provided by a debt-free education.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48440555]Also, worth noting that the BLM protestors are actually just black republicans. Even Bernie will start hiring security for events.[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha what?
[editline]12th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48444227]There's dozens of European countries that have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded college. It's a very simple and very helpful system for redistributing wealth.
The idea that it's impossible to have nationally-funded college education and nationally-funded healthcare is a joke. The burden on taxpayers would be minor in comparison to both the quality of life improvements and the massive increase in socioeconomic mobility provided by a debt-free education.[/QUOTE]
You know how they can afford that? Because the US subsidizes their military for them.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48444959]
You know how they can afford that? Because the US subsidizes their military for them.[/QUOTE]
Normally I don't agree with Ridge, but due to things like NATO; we do a lot of the funding. Its the point where the NATO general has been demanding European nations bump up their military spending and there's grumblings within US government to remove Europe from NATO; full stop.
[QUOTE=Tudd;48443215]He is trying to bring the country in-line with other modern societies that have been able to implement these policies that he is trying to push forward.
Unlike most candidates he actually has proposed plans with thought out solutions.[/QUOTE]
His policies aren't thought-out. His plan to fund community college by taxing high-frequency share trading? Disastrous and self-defeating. Or what about raising corporate tax rates when they need to be lowered? The highest rates in the developed world are what have pushed American firms to use offshore tax havens in the first place; the US does need to end indefinite foreign subsidiary tax deferral but it also needs to subsequently drop the highest marginal rate to below 28%. How about wanting to increase income tax rates when the real problem of millionaires doing tax planning is long-term capital gains which are only taxed nominally at up to 15%?
He's as pragmatic as most other politicians. Or in other words, barely.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48444227]There's dozens of European countries that have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded college. It's a very simple and very helpful system for redistributing wealth.
The idea that it's impossible to have nationally-funded college education and nationally-funded healthcare is a joke. The burden on taxpayers would be minor in comparison to both the quality of life improvements and the massive increase in socioeconomic mobility provided by a debt-free education.[/QUOTE]
It's easy to point to one of the countries in Europe and say that they're doing better than us, with how much of a disaster the politics here are. A socialist system is not impossible, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a deregulated solution. Especially with health care, we're kind of sitting in a horrifying middle ground between capitalism and socialism that combines the worst parts of either system. At this point, progress in either direction would be an improvement, but I'd personally advocate for moving away from putting the burden on taxpayers.
There's just enough regulation in those industries to drive the cost up an enormous amount. Intervention in the flow of money in college and health care has been steadily rising, so has the burden on the consumers. We could get to a system where people could actually afford to pay for these things without having to resort to taxpayer funding.
[QUOTE=Conscript;48441016]Meh, that didn't give me much confidence. It's 'some prominent voices', being a post-modern/post-left directionless movement without any sort of real leadership or organs of power, and it only came after they apparently got their way. I didn't even think they needed to, considering Sanders is, well, Sanders. But apparently they need to co-opt the most left wing candidate, I guess because they feel they can.
This new generation of black activists are pathetic, a true shadow of what was decades ago. Ironically, they're basically trying to cannibalize that in the form of co-opting Sanders. They aren't trying to be rooted in any theory or the left, like Occupy they're just a post-modern spontaneous movement only grounded in their directionless emotional outbursts and, being fueled by the spirit of a spontaneous movement, think they need to bring down those that still have any sense of politics to their level if only because they're white men in the establishment.
Like I said, fucking pathetic. They just sabotage everyone involved, Sanders and BLM.[/QUOTE]
although i disagree with the decision to storm the stage (pragmatically, the best way they could have approached the situation, if doing anything, would be to make friends and rally support [I]alongside[/I] Sanders and the crowd, rather than calling the lot of people who showed up "white supremacists"), it always strikes me as very odd that some people (not saying you, just general thoughts) think that the logical, ethical, and constitutional arguments behind reforms that reduce black-white disparities are somehow null and void because a couple people disrupted a rally and said some mean words.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;48446639]It's easy to point to one of the countries in Europe and say that they're doing better than us, with how much of a disaster the politics here are. A socialist system is not impossible, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a deregulated solution. Especially with health care, we're kind of sitting in a horrifying middle ground between capitalism and socialism that combines the worst parts of either system. At this point, progress in either direction would be an improvement, but I'd personally advocate for moving away from putting the burden on taxpayers.
There's just enough regulation in those industries to drive the cost up an enormous amount. Intervention in the flow of money in college and health care has been steadily rising, so has the burden on the consumers. We could get to a system where people could actually afford to pay for these things without having to resort to taxpayer funding.[/QUOTE]
America could have a stable, sustainable market-based approach, which it should have, but not in its current state. I don't know the full extent of what the PPACA changed, but the biggest problems aren't at the insurance level (because profit is only a small fraction of every dollar paid in premiums, same for admin costs too) but rather at the billing level. There's a lot of discussion on the fee-for-service model and whether it should be replaced by bundled payments to bring down costs by disincentivising (I hate that word) unnecessary care and expenses. However some people say that wouldn't bring down costs significantly. But change like that needs to be researched and implemented.
I'd say my biggest gripe with the PPACA is it should have adopted bundled payments for its marketplace plans anyways rather than sticking with old models, for the reason of insurees actually getting to experience what they pay huge amounts of premiums for. If you're on a bronze plan your average deductible is like $6,000 per year. That means the insuree has to pay the first $6,000 of costs out of their own pocket before insurance kicks in. So insurance might as well be worthless to many people. With a bundled payments model, the deductible could go via episode of care. So for instance, the deductible per episode of care might be $500 with co-insurance after that (such as 50% on bronze plans, 20% on gold plans) up until a max out of pocket.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;48446639]Especially with health care, we're kind of sitting in a horrifying middle ground between capitalism and socialism that combines the worst parts of either system. At this point, progress in either direction would be an improvement, but I'd personally advocate for moving away from putting the burden on taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
I just can't agree with this though. Yeah, the burden is on the taxpayer, but the result is nobody has to worry about healthcare. The alternative is the system we have now, where healthcare is geared toward the wealthy, and the majority of people have to worry about losing everything in the event they're seriously injured.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;48446639]It's easy to point to one of the countries in Europe and say that they're doing better than us, with how much of a disaster the politics here are. A socialist system is not impossible, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a deregulated solution. Especially with health care, we're kind of sitting in a horrifying middle ground between capitalism and socialism that combines the worst parts of either system. At this point, progress in either direction would be an improvement, but I'd personally advocate for moving away from putting the burden on taxpayers.
There's just enough regulation in those industries to drive the cost up an enormous amount. Intervention in the flow of money in college and health care has been steadily rising, so has the burden on the consumers. We could get to a system where people could actually afford to pay for these things without having to resort to taxpayer funding.[/QUOTE]
Deregulation will continue the status quo of exhorbent prices for medical services because people need medicine, it's a captive market. Why would the supplier of a prescription drug that people need lower their price, for example? What would they gain, given that people, if they want to stay health/alive have to continue to pay whatever price is set.
ISP's are another great example of how capitalism has failed. Why upgrade infrastructure when you can just sit around and do nothing because there's no competition.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48447748]I just can't agree with this though. Yeah, the burden is on the taxpayer, but the result is nobody has to worry about healthcare. The alternative is the system we have now, where healthcare is geared toward the wealthy, and the majority of people have to worry about losing everything in the event they're seriously injured.[/QUOTE]
Who said those are the only two options? That the only options are right now and absolute single-payer? Australia has a market-based approach to healthcare and it works, granted we do have a two-tier healthcare system with a bit more public involvement, but there's no reason a market-based approach couldn't work. Yet again, the problem is at the billing level rather than the insurance level. America could have single-payer healthcare yet massive cost growth, inefficiency and unsustainability if they retained the same billing system.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48445785]His policies aren't thought-out. His plan to fund community college by taxing high-frequency share trading? Disastrous and self-defeating. Or what about raising corporate tax rates when they need to be lowered? The highest rates in the developed world are what have pushed American firms to use offshore tax havens in the first place; the US does need to end indefinite foreign subsidiary tax deferral but it also needs to subsequently drop the highest marginal rate to below 28%. How about wanting to increase income tax rates when the real problem of millionaires doing tax planning is long-term capital gains which are only taxed nominally at up to 15%?
He's as pragmatic as most other politicians. Or in other words, barely.[/QUOTE]
Considering the great lengths people have gone through to prevent paying taxes at all within the current system, odds are they wouldn't pay anything if taxes for them were as low as 10% either.
"Rich people aren't paying taxes and are hoarding huge amounts of our nation's wealth in foreign tax havens, what should we do?!"
"Lower taxes!"
"But-"
"ARE YOU DEAF YOU FUCKING SOCIALIST PINKO COMMIE LIBTARD?! I SAID LOWER THE MOTHERFUCKING TAXES!"
If the wealthy people want to stop being taxed so damn much, then they need to start paying their employees like they're worth a fuck and stop sitting on top of their pile of gold while blowing fire at anyone who DARE think they need it more than they. The fact that many large multi-billion dollar corporations have out-sourced their labor over-seas to countries [B]where they know damn well[/B] the work-force is exploited to the point that, rather than giving their workers the help they need to prevent them from becoming suicidal after being made to eat, sleep, and live in the same factories they work in with very limited personal freedoms, where they're practically treated like robots if not worse, they'd rather just put up a net to catch them as they jump, it says an awful lot about how much they give a fuck.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;48446639]It's easy to point to one of the countries in Europe and say that they're doing better than us, with how much of a disaster the politics here are. A socialist system is not impossible, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a deregulated solution. Especially with health care, we're kind of sitting in a horrifying middle ground between capitalism and socialism that combines the worst parts of either system. At this point, progress in either direction would be an improvement, but I'd personally advocate for moving away from putting the burden on taxpayers.
There's just enough regulation in those industries to drive the cost up an enormous amount. Intervention in the flow of money in college and health care has been steadily rising, so has the burden on the consumers. We could get to a system where people could actually afford to pay for these things without having to resort to taxpayer funding.[/QUOTE]
There's no burden for tax payers if they're actually paid worth a fuck. And de-regulated? Regulations don't exist to suck the joy out of wealthy people's lives, they exist to form a standard. De-regulation is what caused the Great Depression, and several recessions afterwards, culminating in the recession of 2007-08 from which we're STILL feeling the effects from which NOBODY was held accountable.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48449165]Considering the great lengths people have gone through to prevent paying taxes at all within the current system, odds are they wouldn't pay anything if taxes for them were as low as 10% either.
"Rich people aren't paying taxes and are hoarding huge amounts of our nation's wealth in foreign tax havens, what should we do?!"
"Lower taxes!"
"But-"
"ARE YOU DEAF YOU FUCKING SOCIALIST PINKO COMMIE LIBTARD?! I SAID LOWER THE MOTHERFUCKING TAXES!"
If the wealthy people want to stop being taxed so damn much, then they need to start paying their employees like they're worth a fuck and stop sitting on top of their pile of gold while blowing fire at anyone who DARE think they need it more than they. The fact that many large multi-billion dollar corporations have out-sourced their labor over-seas to countries [B]where they know damn well[/B] the work-force is exploited to the point that, rather than giving their workers the help they need to prevent them from becoming suicidal after being made to eat, sleep, and live in the same factories they work in with very limited personal freedoms, where they're practically treated like robots if not worse, they'd rather just put up a net to catch them as they jump, it says an awful lot about how much they give a fuck.[/QUOTE]
You can't just have corporate taxes at ridiculously high rates and expect corporations to play ball. From an international competitiveness standing point, US corporations are at a disadvantage as they are taxed on worldwide income. Eg in Poland, Polish corporations pay 18% tax. An American corporation (at the highest marginal rate) doing business in Poland pays 35% after the tax treaty is accounted for. However of course because of offshore tax deferral they only pay the Polish rate (to the Polish tax office) until profits are returned to the US. But they don't return those profits, which can be taxed as dividends and invested in American jobs, because the tax liability they face is huge and so they might as well invest offshore, like in those sweatshop jobs. Simple cost-benefit analysis.
Indefinite deferral should be ended, but then that US Corporation would be uncompetitive even in Northern Europe, especially in Poland where they'd pay almost twice as much tax as a Polish corporation. Something has to go, which is the tax rate. You know how people always point to Scandinavian countries as models for the US to follow? Well, Sweden has a corporate tax rate of 22%. Wouldn't that be a good model to follow? Obama thinks so. He wants to drop the top rate to 28%. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation advocates for a 20-25% rate at the most. It's also a bipartisan movement. The funny thing is that the US would actually raise more revenue from corporate income tax if they lowered the rate and ended indefinite offshore deferral, as those corporations would finally pay tax on worldwide income.
Hell you could drop the corporate rate to something like 10% and you'd still be getting heaps of revenue from from taxing the dividends issued to American shareholders. It's funny actually because even with qualified dividends, profits now are taxed at up to 60%/45% (normal/qualified dividend) for the wealthiest shareholders, but the effective tax rate of those shareholders appears so low because it doesn't show the effect of the double dipping tax effect on the profit (doesn't show what the corporation paid). By lowering the corporate tax rate or implementing dividend imputation, corporations would be more likely to release those profits to shareholders. We have dividend imputation here and our corporations release twice as much of their profits to shareholders than US corporations.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48449647]You can't just have corporate taxes at ridiculously high rates and expect corporations to play ball. From an international competitiveness standing point, US corporations are at a disadvantage as they are taxed on worldwide income. Eg in Poland, Polish corporations pay 18% tax. An American corporation (at the highest marginal rate) doing business in Poland pays 35% after the tax treaty is accounted for. However of course because of offshore tax deferral they only pay the Polish rate (to the Polish tax office) until profits are returned to the US. But they don't return those profits, which can be taxed as dividends and invested in American jobs, because the tax liability they face is huge and so they might as well invest offshore, like in those sweatshop jobs. Simple cost-benefit analysis.[/quote]
This basically translates to companies saying "Yeah, see, I [i]could[/i] pay my fair share in taxes and invest in American jobs, but I'd much rather make more money on top of my billions, so I'm afraid y'all are gonna have to eat dicks kthx".
[quote]Indefinite deferral should be ended, but then that US Corporation would be uncompetitive even in Northern Europe, especially in Poland where they'd pay almost twice as much tax as a Polish corporation. Something has to go, which is the tax rate. You know how people always point to Scandinavian countries as models for the US to follow? Well, Sweden has a corporate tax rate of 22%. Wouldn't that be a good model to follow? Obama thinks so. He wants to drop the top rate to 28%. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation advocates for a 20-25% rate at the most. It's also a bipartisan movement. The funny thing is that the US would actually raise more revenue from corporate income tax if they lowered the rate and ended indefinite offshore deferral, as those corporations would finally pay tax on worldwide income.
Hell you could drop the corporate rate to something like 10% and you'd still be getting heaps of revenue from from taxing the dividends issued to American shareholders. It's funny actually because even with qualified dividends, profits now are taxed at up to 60%/45% (normal/qualified dividend) for the wealthiest shareholders, but the effective tax rate of those shareholders appears so low because it doesn't show the effect of the double dipping tax effect on the profit (doesn't show what the corporation paid). By lowering the corporate tax rate or implementing dividend imputation, corporations would be more likely to release those profits to shareholders. We have dividend imputation here and our corporations release twice as much of their profits to shareholders than US corporations.[/QUOTE]
This also does nothing to negate the notion that as much effort as American companies are currently exerting to ensure they don't pay taxes, there's little chance they'll pay ANY rate, no matter how low you make it.
It's also worth noting that, in Australia, the CEO-worker pay-gap is a lot smaller than it is here in America.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/BkRzCcx.png[/img]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48439938]He has a lot of media hurdles.
He's a self-admitted socialist.
He allowed BLM to interrupt his speeches on two occasions, which could easily be construed as weakness by the media.
He's admittedly "not very religious."
He's old.
A lot of challenges he faces with the media, but if he can use his respectful treatment of BLM and his great racial justice platform he could start winning the black vote, which is hugely important.[/QUOTE]
Being not very religious might hurt him on the black vote honestly
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48442682]Is it really that difficult in the US? I messed up the paperwork in a local election and just took an Oath when I got there.
And a male. He's already lost the ultra-progressives to Hilary.[/QUOTE]
Are you for real? What's with your hard on for being against "Ultra progressives, they only like her cuz she's a woman and hate bernie because he's a old white guy"? This is maybe how the world works in your head where everything to the left of you is tumblr, but not how the real world works.
[editline]13th August 2015[/editline]
I find it weird how people say they're liberal then do a 180 on certain issues like Feminism and Blacklivesmatter, then cite something as silly as tumblr as the reason why, like grow up
[QUOTE=DaMastez;48447776]Deregulation will continue the status quo of exhorbent prices for medical services because people need medicine, it's a captive market. Why would the supplier of a prescription drug that people need lower their price, for example? What would they gain, given that people, if they want to stay health/alive have to continue to pay whatever price is set.
ISP's are another great example of how capitalism has failed. Why upgrade infrastructure when you can just sit around and do nothing because there's no competition.[/QUOTE]
Without regulation, you have competition between health care providers to bring costs down. Even aside from competition, in the Great Depression when nobody had any money, I know of people, who couldn't afford it at the time, who were told to just pay the bill when they were able to. You get more issues when you try to direct the cost towards taxpayers or insurance companies. When the actual customer has no connection to the price, there is pretty much no incentive to bring costs down, and that's been one of the driving forces behind the increase in cost of health care in America. Hospitals just throw on as many unnecessary treatments as they can because they get handouts for everything they do, and prices even go up when price controls are implemented because they just end up going for the most expensive treatments. That cost comes around to screw over taxpayers, and in this case the people under insurance companies as well because they are propped up by so many regulations.
ISPs also are a bit of a messy subject because they have to go through lots of negotiation with cities to actually build their infrastructure. The government also has a history of funding their expansion, and this all basically means that whoever they like most is the one who gets put in place in a particular city.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48449165]
There's no burden for tax payers if they're actually paid worth a fuck. And de-regulated? Regulations don't exist to suck the joy out of wealthy people's lives, they exist to form a standard. De-regulation is what caused the Great Depression, and several recessions afterwards, culminating in the recession of 2007-08 from which we're STILL feeling the effects from which NOBODY was held accountable.[/QUOTE]
There were a number of things that happened right before the Great Depression, including international trade going to shit with high tariffs. The pre-war gold standard was also put back in place after money had been printed to fund WWI. It basically meant free money and the banks ran out of supplies from people trying to cash in. Socialist programs were put in place to try to stop the depression and the thing lasted 10 years, previous crashes worked themselves out within a year or two.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48451233]This basically translates to companies saying "Yeah, see, I [i]could[/i] pay my fair share in taxes and invest in American jobs, but I'd much rather make more money on top of my billions, so I'm afraid y'all are gonna have to eat dicks kthx".[/quote]
Fair share? They're taxed more than anyone else. If they put that money towards their company, the company grows and creates jobs. If they buy 10,000 golden toilets, they create jobs making golden toilets. If they store it all in a bank, it gets invested back into the economy.
[quote]This also does nothing to negate the notion that as much effort as American companies are currently exerting to ensure they don't pay taxes, there's little chance they'll pay ANY rate, no matter how low you make it.
It's also worth noting that, in Australia, the CEO-worker pay-gap is a lot smaller than it is here in America.[/QUOTE]
The idea would likely hardly be there in the first place if we didn't try to pull so much money away from them. If they've already started trying to mess with the system to get their own money back, why not just go all the way? Tax evasion practically becomes a sport when the rates get that high.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48451233]This basically translates to companies saying "Yeah, see, I [i]could[/i] pay my fair share in taxes and invest in American jobs, but I'd much rather make more money on top of my billions, so I'm afraid y'all are gonna have to eat dicks kthx".
This also does nothing to negate the notion that as much effort as American companies are currently exerting to ensure they don't pay taxes, there's little chance they'll pay ANY rate, no matter how low you make it.
It's also worth noting that, in Australia, the CEO-worker pay-gap is a lot smaller than it is here in America.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/BkRzCcx.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Why do you think corporations should be binded into some kind of social responsibility? Corporations are out there to make a profit for their shareholders. They don't owe anything to society except tax on their income and returns for shareholders. CSR can be a way to attain profitability, but not in every circumstance. And in case you didn't notice I'd rather see those corporations investing back in the US but they aren't going to be encouraged to do it when subject to the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and those tax rates effect their ability to compete in a globalised economy as the US uses a worldwide tax system. Or the US could follow the rest of the world and adopt a territorial tax system, and not tax resident companies on their offshore profits at all. I'm sure you wouldn't rather that.
Also in case you didn't notice, I have said I wanted to see indefinite foreign offshore tax deferral ended, which would end that tax loophole and allow the IRS to tax that offshore income. But as I said, that has to come with a trade-off so US corporations are competitive offshore. Again with the Poland example, if you end the tax loophole, a US corporation at the highest marginal rate doing business in Poland has almost twice as much tax liability as a Polish corporation (35% vs 18%). That's not good for doing business, not good for Americans employed by that corporation, and that doesn't bring wealth back to the US. Ending the loophole will mean that the wealth will come back to the US, regardless of the tax rate, but the rate needs to be lowered so that there is actually wealth that can be brought back by having US corporations be just as competitive as they are now offshore.
Why is the CEO-worker pay gap relevant? Australia and the US are two different scenarios and each country was pretty much isolated from each other, and grew differently, until the 50s. The US rewards success better than they do here. Of course there should be changes in the US to help boost the working class. Most of that change can be from reforming the tax system. Cutting the employee FICA taxes completely will mean someone working full-time at the minimum wage will have an extra $20 in their pocket every week. Cutting the employer FICA taxes will stop the punishment of businesses for employing labour, and each of those cuts will create opportunities for new jobs through increased consumer spending and lower overhead costs. Allowing SMEs to have instant full depreciation write-offs will boost B2B spending and reduce the costs of red tape; unproductive costs. And yes the wealthier should pay more on capital gains but they already pay enough on income.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48453941]Are you for real? What's with your hard on for being against "Ultra progressives, they only like her cuz she's a woman and hate bernie because he's a old white guy"? This is maybe how the world works in your head where everything to the left of you is tumblr, but not how the real world works.[/QUOTE]
Do you have so much faith in the American public that they will vote for politicians based on social policies and responsibility in fiscal planning as opposed to whichever candidate is the most popular, charismatic and has a personality they identify with? Are all of the previously elected presidents indicative of this?
[QUOTE=Baboo00;48441501][url]https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/[/url]
He put this up recently in response. It's all so spot on, I'd be surprised if this didn't satisfy them.[/QUOTE]
After reading that link, I found this:
[QUOTE]In the shameful days of open segregation, “literacy” laws were used to suppress minority voting. [B]Today, through other laws and actions — such as requiring voters to show photo ID[/B][/QUOTE]
Which is pretty disturbing. Voter ID laws are completely necessary, if we didn't have them how could we verify the validity of the vote? I think it's also pretty disgusting how the Democratic party in general abuses the "voter discrimination" bullshit to argue against voter ID laws, knowing full well that it allows non-citizens and illegal immigrants to vote for their platform. It's abhorrent how people still try to come up with excuses against something as straightforward and simple as having to show your ID when you vote.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48454219]Why do you think corporations should be binded into some kind of social responsibility? Corporations are out there to make a profit for their shareholders. They don't owe anything to society except tax on their income and returns for shareholders. CSR can be a way to attain profitability, but not in every circumstance. And in case you didn't notice I'd rather see those corporations investing back in the US but they aren't going to be encouraged to do it when subject to the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and those tax rates effect their ability to compete in a globalised economy as the US uses a worldwide tax system. Or the US could follow the rest of the world and adopt a territorial tax system, and not tax resident companies on their offshore profits at all. I'm sure you wouldn't rather that.
Also in case you didn't notice, I have said I wanted to see indefinite foreign offshore tax deferral ended, which would end that tax loophole and allow the IRS to tax that offshore income. But as I said, that has to come with a trade-off so US corporations are competitive offshore. Again with the Poland example, if you end the tax loophole, a US corporation at the highest marginal rate doing business in Poland has almost twice as much tax liability as a Polish corporation (35% vs 18%). That's not good for doing business, not good for Americans employed by that corporation, and that doesn't bring wealth back to the US. Ending the loophole will mean that the wealth will come back to the US, regardless of the tax rate, but the rate needs to be lowered so that there is actually wealth that can be brought back by having US corporations be just as competitive as they are now offshore.
Why is the CEO-worker pay gap relevant? Australia and the US are two different scenarios and each country was pretty much isolated from each other, and grew differently, until the 50s. The US rewards success better than they do here. Of course there should be changes in the US to help boost the working class. Most of that change can be from reforming the tax system. Cutting the employee FICA taxes completely will mean someone working full-time at the minimum wage will have an extra $20 in their pocket every week. Cutting the employer FICA taxes will stop the punishment of businesses for employing labour, and each of those cuts will create opportunities for new jobs through increased consumer spending and lower overhead costs. Allowing SMEs to have instant full depreciation write-offs will boost B2B spending and reduce the costs of red tape; unproductive costs. And yes the wealthier should pay more on capital gains but they already pay enough on income.[/QUOTE]
What about the current separation between rich and poor, comparable of that of many third world countries, that makes climbing the economic ladder nigh-impossible for most people? What about the rampant monopolies that make competitiveness impossible and are therefore so lax and badly run that they require government bailouts that come straight from the pockets of the taxpayer? For example, the US government purchases and dumps massive tons of farmed produce in the ocean every year at a loss in order to maintain the heavily beaten, dead and decaying horse corpse that is the farming industry. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Full Laissez-faire style capitalism with no regulation and no anti-trust laws? The removal of anti-competitiveness laws that stop the creation of market monopolies in the first place? Would you like to see everybody in the country starve in order to work for terribly inefficient business practices that require constant government handouts, all so that they can compete with third-world countries when it comes to worker rights? You cannot compete with China and India, they have a massive work force and put their workers through horrendous working conditions to remain competitive. European style social democracy is the most successful economic model for first world countries right now, it allowed the EU to survive the 2008 meltdown with little damage (aside from Greece, which had a horrendously corrupt government). Australia also had little issue surviving the cascade while in America there was mass homelessness and bankruptcy.
The system, as it exists today, is not functional. We should not be supporting the creation of de facto monopolies because we are afraid that multi-national corporations that already exist in every country in the world regardless of regulatory practices will leave us if we don't bend to their every whim. If a business or a specific industry cannot make money in a fair and balanced system that taxes everyone fairly, that says more about their inefficient and outdated business practices then it does the government of the country they operate in. If the US allows tax breaks and government handouts to the rich and powerful then it is not a free market, that would require everyone to be on equal footing.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48454348]After reading that link, I found this:
Which is pretty disturbing. Voter ID laws are completely necessary, if we didn't have them how could we verify the validity of the vote? I think it's also pretty disgusting how the Democratic party in general abuses the "voter discrimination" bullshit to argue against voter ID laws, knowing full well that it allows non-citizens and illegal immigrants to vote for their platform. It's abhorrent how people still try to come up with excuses against something as straightforward and simple as having to show your ID when you vote.[/QUOTE]
Vote disenfranchisement is a very, very real problem - Voter ID laws are one of the smallest parts of it. Part of the argument was that gun licenses and concealed carry licenses counted as government-issued ID, but IDs from state schools and colleges (which could easily present necessary information to confirm a vote) were not usable, disenfranchising younger voters while allowing republican-leaning gun owners to have an easier time voting.
Gerrymandering means that states like Texas are effectively guaranteed to be Republican wholly by disenfranchising democratic voters. They cordon off liberal towns like Denton, giving them a single democratic vote, and then you cordon off inner-city Austin and San Antonio (in a single, squiggly, tiny district), and then split the suburbs and surrounding liberal areas into several districts that branch outwards into rural areas to offset the liberal vote and guarantee republican victories in those districts.
If you're in jail, on probation, or on parole, you are not allowed to vote. There's a cycle of parole-probation-prison that prevents a surprisingly large population in the US from voting for things like misdemeanor marijuana crimes or public intoxication or any other sort of very minor charge. It prevents you from voting for a year or more. It unfairly targets minorities and the impoverished - both of whom are more likely to vote Democrat. In some states, it is very difficult to regain the right to vote after becoming a felon, and it is very possible to almost permanently lose your right to vote after a felony conviction.
In poorer areas, voting offices are underfunded or shut down entirely, forcing poor people to travel unreasonable distances to vote if they want to. It discourages people from voting, because instead of stopping by after work, they have to take a whole day off and travel two towns over to vote.
Voter registration heavily prevents people from going to vote by wasting their time. It could be an automated process very easily, but instead you have to mail in information months in advance. If you forget or you get delayed, you can't vote. Tough shit.
The whole country really need to just imitate Washington State and allow no-questions-asked absentee mail-in ballots. It increases the voting rate of all sections of the population, which results in greater representation.
If you could walk in to a voting booth and show your driver's license or government ID or something, perfect, I'd be happy with that. In Texas I have to register months in advance, receive my voter registration card, present it (and an ID) at the voting booth, and then I can vote. And the voting booths in my town are chronically underfunded and super fucking crowded during presidential elections. Wasn't a hassle during off-year elections when I voted for governor, but during presidential years it's cramped and can take several hours to vote.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48454396]What about the current separation between rich and poor, comparable of that of many third world countries, that makes climbing the economic ladder nigh-impossible for most people? What about the rampant monopolies that make competitiveness impossible and are therefore so lax and badly run that they require government bailouts that come straight from the pockets of the taxpayer? For example, the US government purchases and dumps massive tons of farmed produce in the ocean every year at a loss in order to maintain the heavily beaten, dead and decaying horse corpse that is the farming industry. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Full Laissez-faire style capitalism with no regulation and no anti-trust laws? The removal of anti-competitiveness laws that stop the creation of market monopolies in the first place? Would you like to see everybody in the country starve in order to work for terribly inefficient business practices that require constant government handouts, all so that they can compete with third-world countries when it comes to worker rights? You cannot compete with China and India, they have a massive work force and put their workers through horrendous working conditions to remain competitive. European style social democracy is the most successful economic model for first world countries right now, it allowed the EU to survive the 2008 meltdown with little damage (aside from Greece, which had a horrendously corrupt government). Australia also had little issue surviving the cascade while in America there was mass homelessness and bankruptcy.
The system, as it exists today, is not functional. We should not be supporting the creation of de facto monopolies because we are afraid that multi-national corporations that already exist in every country in the world regardless of regulatory practices will leave us if we don't bend to their every whim. If a business or a specific industry cannot make money in a fair and balanced system that taxes everyone fairly, that says more about their inefficient and outdated business practices then it does the government of the country they operate in. If the US allows tax breaks and government handouts to the rich and powerful then it is not a free market, that would require everyone to be on equal footing.[/QUOTE]
You say monopolies are badly run, so they require government bailouts - right here you're saying that monopolies are unstable. They typically need government support to actually stay upright, and that's exactly what's happened throughout US history. The ones that form without government intervention do so because they're actually good for consumers, and even those still have to fight to stay ahead of the competition. Even the giant that was Standard Oil was starting to decline by the time it was forcibly split up.
Outsourcing really only happens to the worst workers in an industry, and people will just go with automation if they're blocked from hiring cheaper labor. The people who can't even produce enough value to be worth minimum wage to a company are just going to end up unemployed anyways (teenage unemployment has been correlated with minimum wage increases).
The problem with the economies within EU is that you just don't see much coming out of them. Take a country like Finland that everyone loves to point to as a perfect economic system. Do they have a Microsoft, Google, Apple? Have any innovations in medical technology come out of them?
Government handouts to rich people (or much of anyone for that matter) really aren't something the US should be run on, and definitely don't represent a free market.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48454396]What about the current separation between rich and poor, comparable of that of many third world countries, that makes climbing the economic ladder nigh-impossible for most people? What about the rampant monopolies that make competitiveness impossible and are therefore so lax and badly run that they require government bailouts that come straight from the pockets of the taxpayer? For example, the US government purchases and dumps massive tons of farmed produce in the ocean every year at a loss in order to maintain the heavily beaten, dead and decaying horse corpse that is the farming industry. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Full Laissez-faire style capitalism with no regulation and no anti-trust laws? The removal of anti-competitiveness laws that stop the creation of market monopolies in the first place? Would you like to see everybody in the country starve in order to work for terribly inefficient business practices that require constant government handouts, all so that they can compete with third-world countries when it comes to worker rights? You cannot compete with China and India, they have a massive work force and put their workers through horrendous working conditions to remain competitive. European style social democracy is the most successful economic model for first world countries right now, it allowed the EU to survive the 2008 meltdown with little damage (aside from Greece, which had a horrendously corrupt government). Australia also had little issue surviving the cascade while in America there was mass homelessness and bankruptcy.
The system, as it exists today, is not functional. We should not be supporting the creation of de facto monopolies because we are afraid that multi-national corporations that already exist in every country in the world regardless of regulatory practices will leave us if we don't bend to their every whim. If a business or a specific industry cannot make money in a fair and balanced system that taxes everyone fairly, that says more about their inefficient and outdated business practices then it does the government of the country they operate in. If the US allows tax breaks and government handouts to the rich and powerful then it is not a free market, that would require everyone to be on equal footing.[/QUOTE]
Who said I was for no regulation and no anti-trust laws? And you know how you said the European system works? Sweden has a top corporate tax rate of 22%. And who said anything about tax breaks to the rich and powerful? I didn't advocate for that. I even said tax breaks should be given to the working class and personal capital gains should be revised. Tax cuts for companies aren't tax cuts for the rich.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48454484]Vote disenfranchisement is a very, very real problem - Voter ID laws are one of the smallest parts of it. Part of the argument was that gun licenses and concealed carry licenses counted as government-issued ID, but IDs from state schools and colleges (which could easily present necessary information to confirm a vote) were not usable, disenfranchising younger voters while allowing republican-leaning gun owners to have an easier time voting.[/quote]
I understand where this is coming from but think about it. The standards for various school IDs vary from school to school so there wouldn't be a way to be sure it's valid. A municipal state college ID might suffice because it's the government's school and the IDs could more than likely be integrated into their systems, but then we run into another issue with IDs in general: Most don't confirm citizenship. I'm looking at my CA ID right now and there doesn't seem to be any indicator of me being a US Citizen.
Which brings me to something you brought up just now:
[quote]
Voter registration heavily prevents people from going to vote by wasting their time. It could be an automated process very easily, but instead you have to mail in information months in advance. If you forget or you get delayed, you can't vote. Tough shit.
[/quote]
Registration is a process that lets them confirm your eligibility to vote. I do agree that not having it be an automated process and making it all go by snail mail is problematic where that situation exists, but I think this is more of a problem with the civil government in general always being too far behind in technology and communications. But here's some food for thought: Just a couple months ago when I registered for my CA ID, there was an optional form that let me register for voting and declare my party, etc etc. I filled it out with relative ease and unless I'm missing something here, I think I am for all intents and purposes registered to vote, and pretty hassle-free. In fact I think a lot of opportunities to register for voting come up, and there are other designated public institutions where you can go to register. Neighborhood schools and colleges are no exception from this.
As for having to register several months in advance, I just looked it up and it's not that bad – California has 15 days while Texas has only one month.
[quote]
Gerrymandering means that states like Texas are effectively guaranteed to be Republican wholly by disenfranchising democratic voters. They cordon off liberal towns like Denton, giving them a single democratic vote, and then you cordon off inner-city Austin and San Antonio (in a single, squiggly, tiny district), and then split the suburbs and surrounding liberal areas into several districts that branch outwards into rural areas to offset the liberal vote and guarantee republican victories in those districts.
[/quote]
Yeah Gerrymandering is pretty fucked. I remember seeing a relatively recent map of the districts on the East Coast, and there was this one region that was just an utter mess with districts that resembled snakes more than regional boundaries. It had something to do with how the Democratic party was trying to organize the districts based on minority race distribution; needless to say it was ugly. I'm not really sure if there's a real solution to this, so maybe for now we'll just let it go back and forth between the parties like it has in the past.
[quote]
If you're in jail, on probation, or on parole, you are not allowed to vote. There's a cycle of parole-probation-prison that prevents a surprisingly large population in the US from voting for things like misdemeanor marijuana crimes or public intoxication or any other sort of very minor charge. It prevents you from voting for a year or more. It unfairly targets minorities and the impoverished - both of whom are more likely to vote Democrat. In some states, it is very difficult to regain the right to vote after becoming a felon, and it is very possible to almost permanently lose your right to vote after a felony conviction.
[/quote]
I think it's good that people in jail and people on probation/parole don't get to vote, because they would just vote for politicians and policies that benefit them or give them a better chance of going free. However it is a bit problematic for some offenses which may be relatively minor like you mentioned. I'm not exactly sure how this counts as voter segregation though because there are plenty of people in these situations from every political viewpoint. I'd think it moot at best.
[quote]
The whole country really need to just imitate Washington State and allow no-questions-asked absentee mail-in ballots. It increases the voting rate of all sections of the population, which results in greater representation.
If you could walk in to a voting booth and show your driver's license or government ID or something, perfect, I'd be happy with that. In Texas I have to register months in advance, receive my voter registration card, present it (and an ID) at the voting booth, and then I can vote. And the voting booths in my town are chronically underfunded and super fucking crowded during presidential elections. Wasn't a hassle during off-year elections when I voted for governor, but during presidential years it's cramped and can take several hours to vote.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I feel you there. I always accompany one or the other parent when they go to vote so I've been through those lines. Absentee really should be made more available, but I know that most municipalities discourage its use.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48454938]I understand where this is coming from but think about it. The standards for various school IDs vary from school to school so there wouldn't be a way to be sure it's valid. A municipal state college ID might suffice because it's the government's school and the IDs could more than likely be integrated into their systems, but then we run into another issue with IDs in general: Most don't confirm citizenship. I'm looking at my CA ID right now and there doesn't seem to be any indicator of me being a US Citizen.
Which brings me to something you brought up just now:
Registration is a process that lets them confirm your eligibility to vote. I do agree that not having it be an automated process and making it all go by snail mail is problematic where that situation exists, but I think this is more of a problem with the civil government in general always being too far behind in technology and communications. But here's some food for thought: Just a couple months ago when I registered for my CA ID, there was an optional form that let me register for voting and declare my party, etc etc. I filled it out with relative ease and unless I'm missing something here, I think I am for all intents and purposes registered to vote, and pretty hassle-free. In fact I think a lot of opportunities to register for voting come up, and there are other designated public institutions where you can go to register. Neighborhood schools and colleges are no exception from this.
As for having to register several months in advance, I just looked it up and it's not that bad – California has 15 days while Texas has only one month.
Yeah Gerrymandering is pretty fucked. I remember seeing a relatively recent map of the districts on the East Coast, and there was this one region that was just an utter mess with districts that resembled snakes more than regional boundaries. It had something to do with how the Democratic party was trying to organize the districts based on minority race distribution; needless to say it was ugly. I'm not really sure if there's a real solution to this, so maybe for now we'll just let it go back and forth between the parties like it has in the past.
I think it's good that people in jail and people on probation/parole don't get to vote, because they would just vote for politicians and policies that benefit them or give them a better chance of going free. However it is a bit problematic for some offenses which may be relatively minor like you mentioned. I'm not exactly sure how this counts as voter segregation though because there are plenty of people in these situations from every political viewpoint. I'd think it moot at best.
Yeah I feel you there. I always accompany one or the other parent when they go to vote so I've been through those lines. Absentee really should be made more available, but I know that most municipalities discourage its use.[/QUOTE]
It boils down to a difference in opinion in a couple of these. I'm a vehement supporter of allowing all prisoners to vote. I personally see voting as a guaranteed citizen's right that should never, ever be allowed to be forfeited under any circumstances, even if you are a felon or on parole or any other situation. I think allowing and encouraging these people to vote would help reduce a lot of the ballooning "tough on crime" positions that led to the drug war in the first place. The US's absurdly high prison population could use some representation to combat the for-profit prison industry and predatory police tactics. The US has the highest percentage of the overall population imprisoned out of every country in the world. It's a disenfranchisement tactic, far dirtier than gerrymandering or other ones, and giving prisoners full representation would really help thin the ranks of minor drug offenders and would pressure politicians to drop the pointless "tough on crime" act that only ends up promoting more crime.
I'm not big in the voter ID debate - I get that having some sort of identification of your vote is important. But in-person voter fraud happens in such tiny tiny amounts that it's almost pointless to enact stringent laws protecting it. If someone wants to buy your vote, they can go up to you, say they'll give you 50 bucks to vote for somebody, and you've legally circumvented all voter ID laws. They legally vote with their legal ID for someone who they might not be interested in having as president for immediate cash - voter ID laws do nothing at all to stop this sort of vote manipulation. Voter ID laws do nothing to stop fraud via absentee ballots. In-person voter fraud is essentially zero - there are other avenues through which voter fraud can occur, but in-person voter fraud is consistently found to be next to zero.
There's been study after study on personal voter fraud. One found that personal voter fraud happens at a rate of [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/"]31 per 1 billion[/URL]. Almost all people studying this have found that personal voter fraud is nearly nonexistent. Almost nobody will go vote at one station with one ID and then go vote at another station with a different ID. That's the only type of fraud that voter ID laws protect against, and it's consistently shown to almost never happen.
Voter IDs being used to counter voter fraud is, well, a fraud. It's a made-up controversy. Voter fraud that can be stopped by voter ID systems is almost nonexistent. There are other issues, but generally the states will forward suspicious voter registration forms and ballots to relevant agencies, who will either confirm or discount the votes.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48453941]Are you for real? What's with your hard on for being against "Ultra progressives, they only like her cuz she's a woman and hate bernie because he's a old white guy"? This is maybe how the world works in your head where everything to the left of you is tumblr, but not how the real world works.[/QUOTE]
Quite a few people want to see a first female president, with the bar being low enough to only exclude the likes of Sarah Palin.
Frankly, Hilary supporters are uninformed if they think she's progressive and are probably only looking at her sex and party.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48455097]It boils down to a difference in opinion in a couple of these. I'm a vehement supporter of allowing all prisoners to vote. I personally see voting as a guaranteed citizen's right that should never, ever be allowed to be forfeited under any circumstances, even if you are a felon or on parole or any other situation. I think allowing and encouraging these people to vote would help reduce a lot of the ballooning "tough on crime" positions that led to the drug war in the first place. The US's absurdly high prison population could use some representation to combat the for-profit prison industry and predatory police tactics. The US has the highest percentage of the overall population imprisoned out of every country in the world. It's a disenfranchisement tactic, far dirtier than gerrymandering or other ones, and giving prisoners full representation would really help thin the ranks of minor drug offenders and would pressure politicians to drop the pointless "tough on crime" act that only ends up promoting more crime.[/quote]
Alright, fair enough.
[quote]
I'm not big in the voter ID debate - I get that having some sort of identification of your vote is important. But in-person voter fraud happens in such tiny tiny amounts that it's almost pointless to enact stringent laws protecting it. If someone wants to buy your vote, they can go up to you, say they'll give you 50 bucks to vote for somebody, and you've legally circumvented all voter ID laws. They legally vote with their legal ID for someone who they might not be interested in having as president for immediate cash - voter ID laws do nothing at all to stop this sort of vote manipulation. Voter ID laws do nothing to stop fraud via absentee ballots. In-person voter fraud is essentially zero - there are other avenues through which voter fraud can occur, but in-person voter fraud is consistently found to be next to zero.
There's been study after study on personal voter fraud. One found that personal voter fraud happens at a rate of [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/"]31 per 1 billion[/URL]. Almost all people studying this have found that personal voter fraud is nearly nonexistent. Almost nobody will go vote at one station with one ID and then go vote at another station with a different ID. That's the only type of fraud that voter ID laws protect against, and it's consistently shown to almost never happen.
Voter IDs being used to counter voter fraud is, well, a fraud. It's a made-up controversy. Voter fraud that can be stopped by voter ID systems is almost nonexistent. There are other issues, but generally the states will forward suspicious voter registration forms and ballots to relevant agencies, who will either confirm or discount the votes.[/QUOTE]
Still, I think that we should have voter ID laws just out of principle. Nothing too fancy, just confirm that you are eligible to vote and stuff. I mean, what would voting be worth if the possibility was left open to vote multiple times or vote as a non-citizen? It could be exploited at any point and we wouldn't be any the wiser. As for voting absentee, I think that for the most part is comparatively secure because it's hard to tell who is getting an absentee ballot and where it is being sent, so it's not like those are at any risk of being intercepted.
Like really, even if something can already happen or doesn't happen that much, why make it easier? Sure it might make it easier for some people to vote but I feel like those people are a minority in the same way fraudsters are. It's not that hard to verify yourself with the state and get an ID, really.
Of course, these ID laws could be reformed to be more efficient but that's a topic for another day.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48455247]Alright, fair enough.
Still, I think that we should have voter ID laws just out of principle. Nothing too fancy, just confirm that you are eligible to vote and stuff. I mean, what would voting be worth if the possibility was left open to vote multiple times or vote as a non-citizen? It could be exploited at any point and we wouldn't be any the wiser. As for voting absentee, I think that for the most part is comparatively secure because it's hard to tell who is getting an absentee ballot and where it is being sent, so it's not like those are at any risk of being intercepted.
Like really, even if something can already happen or doesn't happen that much, why make it easier? Sure it might make it easier for some people to vote but I feel like those people are a minority in the same way fraudsters are. It's not that hard to verify yourself with the state and get an ID, really.
Of course, these ID laws could be reformed to be more efficient but that's a topic for another day.[/QUOTE]
They're absolutely in the minority, and the minority still deserves the best chance they can get to vote. That's why absentee ballots allow disabled people to use them no matter what in every state - because they're a minority that has difficulty getting to a voting booth.
I'm for voter ID, I just want it relaxed severely. If you're dirt poor and don't have a driver's license, you need to go wait for a government ID at insanely slow DMVs to get it done, spending a whole day that could be used finding work to [i]pay for[/i] an ID that you can use to vote. If you're attending a state college, they should include enough information on that college student ID to confirm you're eligible to vote. More IDs need to be eligible - or we just need universal mail-in ballots.
You really really have to consider the minority a lot when you're talking about voter rights. Dismissing them as "the minority" doesn't help, because yeah, that's what they are, and that's why we need to make sure they have as much an ability as everyone else to vote. Finding ways to stop incredibly minor voter fraud is way less important to me than making sure everyone has an equal opportunity to get to a voting booth. We have government organizations that handle voter fraud cases with a very high degree of success. It's already a crime, and people can be prosecuted for intentionally committing voter fraud.
You say it's "not that hard," and for the vast majority of people, it isn't. But for that small minority? It can be very difficult. They deserve to vote as much as anyone else, and if they aren't able to because of an artificial government ceiling that prohibits certain citizens from exercising their right to vote, it's disenfranchisement and should be torn down to allow them to vote. Applying for voter registration months in advance, getting it a month or more later, and then having an ID to go vote can already disenfranchise thousands of people. That shouldn't happen, ever.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48455247]Alright, fair enough.
Still, I think that we should have voter ID laws just out of principle. Nothing too fancy, just confirm that you are eligible to vote and stuff. I mean, what would voting be worth if the possibility was left open to vote multiple times or vote as a non-citizen? It could be exploited at any point and we wouldn't be any the wiser. As for voting absentee, I think that for the most part is comparatively secure because it's hard to tell who is getting an absentee ballot and where it is being sent, so it's not like those are at any risk of being intercepted.
Like really, even if something can already happen or doesn't happen that much, why make it easier? Sure it might make it easier for some people to vote but I feel like those people are a minority in the same way fraudsters are. It's not that hard to verify yourself with the state and get an ID, really.
Of course, these ID laws could be reformed to be more efficient but that's a topic for another day.[/QUOTE]
But voting is a right.
Therefore, any requirements to vote are also a right.
In order for a voter ID law to not infringe on people's rights, it would have to also make ID a right for every single citizen. It cost me $40 to get my ID (Not a driver's license, just photo ID), and that essentially means that if I had no ID and wanted to vote, I'd have to pay $40 in order to vote, which is a poll tax in my eyes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.