The Making of the Fox News White House

[BmorePat87]

(03-12-2019, 10:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing concrete; but why not try to fix something before it's broken. Many children brought here illegally are closing in of voting age.

I have no problem with the periodic purging of roles as long as no one area is targeted. I have never been a fan of early voting. I would like to see a Holiday such as President's Day retooled to become Election Day

I think the goal is to get more qualified people to vote. If we want more people to vote we can lower the age to 12.

Personally something I struggle with internally is the "qualification" to vote. I feel with this right comes a degree of responsibility.

"Obtaining an ID is in the too hard to do block, but let me vote for the policies of the nation". I get it's an elitist view (aka the struggle), but why do folks continually complain about Trump and his ignorant base and then suggest there should be no responsibility attached to this right?

I can tell you first hand when I went to the polls to cast my vote in 2016 I saw at least 2 people that had never seen the inside of a voting booth in their life and the workers there had to do everything but check the blocks for them. It was quite obvious where their vote was going.

I don't see a need to fix a nonexistent problem, especially if it requires us making voting harder for our poorest citizens. The fact that it can be hard to get to specific government buildings to access these ID's doesn't mean these citizens aren't worthy of the right to vote. 

I don't understand when laws are created to target Native Americans who live on reservations, invalidating their previous legal addresses. Or why the a candidate for governor of Georgia can legally dismiss tens of thousands of voters, 80% of color, in the year before the election. I question why 30 states introduced stricter voting laws prior to the 2012 election after Black voter turnout increased in 2008 or when 2 swing states that shifted R to D in 2008 (after a 10% increase in early voting) decided to cut early voting by half. 

It doesn't add up to being worried about illegal voting. It seems to be a worry about legal voting of groups of people they oppose. 

[GMDino]

(03-12-2019, 11:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I wasn't referring to children born here, but those brought here

As I said with Rights comes responsibility IMO, I did say it's a stance I struggle with.

Sure there's no test, but didn't the framers plan for this with the establishment of the EC?

That's why I said such measures shouldn't be targeted.

First time voters are great; let's just hope they know what they are doing.

Why do some request documentation/training to exercise your second amendment right, but require nothing to exercise your right to vote? IMO both require a level of responsibility.

Ok missed that part.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to come off as accusatory.

They did...but they also thought only white, male landowners should vote for the longest time.

The problem is that they seem to be targeted and some elected officials have admitted as much.

I agree, but I also know plenty of long time voters who don't know what they are doing.

IMHO, a individual can exercise their 2A rights and do harm to other individuals and themselves even accidentally.  1A makes it hard for an individual to do the same.  That's an incredibly brief glossing over of all the reasons but a quick answer to the question.

[*bfine32*]

(03-12-2019, 11:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't see a need to fix a nonexistent problem, especially if it requires us making voting harder for our poorest citizens. The fact that it can be hard to get to specific government buildings to access these ID's doesn't mean these citizens aren't worthy of the right to vote. 

I don't understand when laws are created to target Native Americans who live on reservations, invalidating their previous legal addresses. Or why the a candidate for governor of Georgia can legally dismiss tens of thousands of voters, 80% of color, in the year before the election. I question why 30 states introduced stricter voting laws prior to the 2012 election after Black voter turnout increased in 2008 or when 2 swing states that shifted R to D in 2008 (after a 10% increase in early voting) decided to cut early voting by half. 

It doesn't add up to being worried about illegal voting. It seems to be a worry about legal voting of groups of people they oppose. 

Perhaps we should wait until it becomes a problem; at no time did I state anyone wasn't worthy of voting. I simply said with this right should come a degree of responsibility; if you disagree that's your opinion.  

Well I did say purging should not be targeted, so we could address that.

So why not look to hone the process instead of suggesting it be dismissed?

[BmorePat87]

(03-12-2019, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps we should wait until it becomes a problem; at no time did I state anyone wasn't worthy of voting. I simply said with this right should come a degree of responsibility; if you disagree that's your opinion.  

Well I did say purging should not be targeted, so we could address that.

So why not look to hone the process instead of suggesting it be dismissed?

I don't think "we have no evidence but it could be a problem, so lets burden people" is a legitimate argument, so I don't see any reason to meet halfway on voter suppression. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-12-2019, 02:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think "we have no evidence but it could be a problem, so lets burden people" is a legitimate argument, so I don't see any reason to meet halfway on voter suppression. 

I wouldn't go as far as to say there is no evidence that those ineligible to vote have voted in the past

But one will use the words they want to support their point:

For instance I use responsibility and voter ID

You use worthy and suppression.

It's a fallacy known as appeal to emotion.

Do you think there should be qualifications to exercise your 2nd amendment right?

[BmorePat87]

(03-12-2019, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wouldn't go as far as to say there is no evidence that those ineligible to vote have voted in the past

But one will use the words they want to support their point:

For instance I use responsibility and voter ID

You use worthy and suppression.

It's a fallacy known as appeal to emotion.

Do you think there should be qualifications to exercise your 2nd amendment right?

I appreciate the use of a rhetorical question to make your point that no right is absolute (it was a good example), which I agree with, but as I said, I don't value what I view as attempted voter suppression.

It's something we just won't find common ground on. It is what it is and I say this sincerely and without any snark intended. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-12-2019, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I appreciate the use of a rhetorical question to make your point that no right is absolute (it was a good example), which I agree with, but as I said, I don't value what I view as attempted voter suppression.

It's something we just won't find common ground on. It is what it is and I say this sincerely and without any snark intended. 

Fair reply and it's really not an issue I'd fall on the sword on.