Were the fuck do you guys live that they don’t check your ID? I’m in a relatively rural suburb of Atlanta and they check our ID like 5 times before we can get into the booth.
And I love how every election the party that’s behind starts crying “voter fraud.” Not that it doesn’t exist, but I would bet it’s much smaller than conspiracy theorists are making it out to be. The dems were hilarious crying about it the past 2 elections, and now it’s the repubs turn, haha.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
They should go back to when only property owners could vote.
We certainly could do more with stricter voting requirements. I’ve been playing with the idea of the citizen vs. the resident along with its rights and responsibilities, but I wouldn’t do the landowner thing. A better representation of that today would be allowing only people who pay taxes to vote.
mike
Or even better, anyone who does NOT receive tax payers money.
If you are on some sort of welfare, you don´t vote.
I do not care if someone pays no money to the government, I do care when they want mine.
[/quote]
i think any legit citizen should be able to vote, but I would be in favour of moving election day to April 15.
That would practically insure limited government.
[quote]Kensei wrote:
Were the fuck do you guys live that they don’t check your ID? I’m in a relatively rural suburb of Atlanta and they check our ID like 5 times before we can get into the booth.
[/quote]
Why don’t you put a little effort into this before posting garbage. A simple search will help you answer your question.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Kensei wrote:
Were the fuck do you guys live that they don’t check your ID? I’m in a relatively rural suburb of Atlanta and they check our ID like 5 times before we can get into the booth.
Why don’t you put a little effort into this before posting garbage. A simple search will help you answer your question.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, that was a smart ass way of me saying “Yeah, they really should make showing an ID mandatory for voting.”
Goddamn you guys are combative in here.
FUCK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME!!!111
[quote]Kensei wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Kensei wrote:
FUCK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME!!!111 [/quote]
Don’t let it happen again.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Kensei wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Kensei wrote:
FUCK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME!!!111
Don’t let it happen again.[/quote]
lol.
[quote]Hog Ear wrote:
Anyone can obtain a valid ID. If an individual is so unstable that they won’t do something as simple as get an ID, than no they should not have the right to vote. You have to have an ID to operate a car, but not to elect the president?! Something’s seriously wrong here. [/quote]
San Fransicko is a “sactuary” city.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
gojira wrote:
Even more frightening - I just served on jury duty and they didn’t check my ID for that either.
BTW - when I voted in the primary, they did check my ID.
Holy shit! Gojira’s back?
mike[/quote]
I never left. I check in from time to time.
Just got tired of the same bullshit over and over again.
[quote]orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Or even better, anyone who does NOT receive tax payers money.
If you are on some sort of welfare, you don´t vote.
I do not care if someone pays no money to the government, I do care when they want mine.[/quote]
People on welfare vote?
I had a conversation with some people at a friends house (some of the people involved weren’t exactly friends so…) about voting and the candidates. The majority of the people couldn’t provide a valid substantial reason why they were going to vote for who they were going to for or why they were going to vote.
I think there should be some sort of basic political test that should be given when you register to vote. Nothing extraordinary, but something to prove you’re fucking competent enough to distinguish between some basic ideas and processes that are affixed to our system of democracy.
I hate that it’s “trendy” to vote. Too many people are sheep and will vote for whoever insert celebrity tells them to vote for. Cocaine’s a helluva drug.
So some of you guys are saying only people with money should vote and pick officials that only care about people with money.
Am I close?
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
So some of you guys are saying only people with money should vote and pick officials that only care about people with money.
Am I close?[/quote]
I am saying that in some Greek city states only those men voted who were able (and allowed to) bear arms.
I am also saying that in this day and age only those people get to decide how the money is divided who actually have to fork it over.
Those who cannot even support themselves, let alone support others, do not get to vote until they can.
This way, the temptation to use the state to steal from your neighbor is significantly diminished.
Or to put it another way, if you can´t handle your life, you do not get to make decisions that concern someone else life.
Especially not economic decisions.
[quote]jawara wrote:
San Fransicko is a “sactuary” city.[/quote]
There are a lot of Chinese and Indians there that their tech economy relies on.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
So some of you guys are saying only people with money should vote and pick officials that only care about people with money.
Am I close?
I am saying that in some Greek city states only those men voted who were able (and allowed to) bear arms.
I am also saying that in this day and age only those people get to decide how the money is divided who actually have to fork it over.
Those who cannot even support themselves, let alone support others, do not get to vote until they can.
This way, the temptation to use the state to steal from your neighbor is significantly diminished.
Or to put it another way, if you can´t handle your life, you do not get to make decisions that concern someone else life.
Especially not economic decisions.
[/quote]
Holy crap I agree with Orion! Didn’t see that one coming.
[quote]orion wrote:
Or even better, anyone who does NOT receive tax payers money.[/quote]
That’s a bit broad. If you use a public road, you’re technically profiting from tax payer’s money.
That’s much better. If you’re not contributing to society - you’re on the dole or in prison - then you don’t get to say how it should be run. Pull your own weight first, and we’ll let you give your input.
Although if everyone paid their fair share, they’d need less of yours.
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
Or even better, anyone who does NOT receive tax payers money.
That’s a bit broad. If you use a public road, you’re technically profiting from tax payer’s money.
If you are on some sort of welfare, you don´t vote.
That’s much better. If you’re not contributing to society - you’re on the dole or in prison - then you don’t get to say how it should be run. Pull your own weight first, and we’ll let you give your input.
I do not care if someone pays no money to the government, I do care when they want mine.
Although if everyone paid their fair share, they’d need less of yours.
[/quote]
I think the last 100 years have shown us that it is next to impossible to agree on what a fair share actually is.
It seems that we alway pay too much while someone else pays not enough.
[quote]orion wrote:
Or even better, anyone who does NOT receive tax payers money.
If you are on some sort of welfare, you don´t vote.
I do not care if someone pays no money to the government, I do care when they want mine.[/quote]
My father gets social security disability benefits from when he worked a full time job in 1969. He also doesn’t have to pay any income taxes. Should he be allowed to vote?
He’s a disabled vet by the way.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Or even better, anyone who does NOT receive tax payers money.
If you are on some sort of welfare, you don´t vote.
I do not care if someone pays no money to the government, I do care when they want mine.
My father gets social security disability benefits from when he worked a full time job in 1969. He also doesn’t have to pay any income taxes. Should he be allowed to vote?
He’s a disabled vet by the way.[/quote]
No?
If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.
That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.
That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.
Which it will.
A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.
I find that amazing.
[quote]orion wrote:
No?
If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.
That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.
That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.
Which it will.
A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.
I find that amazing.
[/quote]
Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?
If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.
That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.
That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.
Which it will.
A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.
I find that amazing.
Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
[/quote]
No that is not sarcasm.
That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.
My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.