Kemp signs restrictive GA voting bill; Dem lawmaker arrested for protesting

[*michaelsean*]

(04-08-2021, 03:07 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Just to go back on this one. The people wanted what the Democrats offered . . . and the ***** Republicans changed the rules. All I offered was a suggestion and you disagree. No one has to live under my rule change. Now tell me who doesn't get it.

Yes i know nobody has to live under your rule change.  I suggested that was a good thing.    Then you went all Republican this and that on me concerning your suggested rule change.  I think we can move on and just call it a disagreement.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(04-08-2021, 03:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes i know nobody has to live under your rule change.  I suggested that was a good thing.    Then you went all Republican this and that on me concerning your suggested rule change.  I think we can move on and just call it a disagreement.

Well, Australia also banned guns but Re. . . Sorry. How soon I forget. You don't have a problem when Republicans change the rules but aren't happy when someone else offers suggestions to their obstruction. What is this thread about again?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

And the reason I have wanted it to be illegal to not vote, in 2016, 58.1% of the registered voters voted(just over 60% in 2020). That means that less than 30% of the registered voters decided who makes the rules in this country

138,000,000 voters out of a population of 249,291,898 of Americans over the age of 18 in 2016. source Less than 28% of 18 and over was enough to put an illiterate buffoon in office for four disastrous years.

This was a concern of mine long before 2016.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-08-2021, 03:26 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Well, Australia also banned guns but Re. . . Sorry. How soon I forget. You don't have a problem when Republicans change the rules but aren't happy when someone else offers suggestions to their obstruction. What is this thread about again?

You're just making stuff  up because you can't escape your party mind.  You can keep asking what this thread is about, and it still doesn't change what your suggestion is.  I have all sorts of problems with things Republicans have done over the last four years.  But this isn't changing a rule, this would be enacting a law, with no authority, because some people don't like the fact that people exercise their right not to vote.  Luckily the USSC would shoot that down no matter what its makeup if anyone were ever to make a law.  

We're just going in circles here. You and I apparently have way different ideas on the philosophy rights and liberties, and I don't think this is going to be resolved.

[TheUberHuber]

(04-08-2021, 04:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're just making stuff  up because you can't escape your party mind.  You can keep asking what this thread is about, and it still doesn't change what your suggestion is.  I have all sorts of problems with things Republicans have done over the last four years.  But this isn't changing a rule, this would be enacting a law, with no authority, because some people don't like the fact that people exercise their right not to vote.  Luckily the USSC would shoot that down no matter what its makeup if anyone were ever to make a law.  

We're just going in circles here.  You and I apparently have way different ideas on rights and liberties, and I don't think this is going to be resolved.

Where you come up with this? I'm genuinely curious how you came to this conclusion 

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-08-2021, 03:53 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: And the reason I have wanted it to be illegal to not vote, in 2016, 58.1% of the registered voters voted(just over 60% in 2020). That means that less than 30% of the registered voters decided who makes the rules in this country

138,000,000 voters out of a population of 249,291,898 of Americans over the age of 18 in 2016. source Less than 28% of 18 and over was enough to put an illiterate buffoon in office for four disastrous years.

This was a concern of mine long before 2016.

The bold part as worded is contradictory. I'm assuming you mean less than 30% of eligible voters voted because only 58.1% in 2016 and just over 60% in 2020 of registered voters, actually voted. Or maybe you mean, that out of the registered voters who voted, approximately slightly less than half of them got their candidates elected, and therefore less than 30% of registered voters actually voted for the winning candidate.

But it's not clear what you mean.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(04-08-2021, 04:20 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: The bold part as worded is contradictory. I'm assuming you mean less than 30% of eligible voters voted because only 58.1% in 2016 and just over 60% in 2020 of registered voters, actually voted. Or maybe you mean, that out of the registered voters who voted, approximately slightly less than half of them got their candidates elected, and therefore less than 30% of registered voters actually voted for the winning candidate.

But it's not clear what you mean.

Yes, voted for the winning candidate = decided who makes the rules.

Any non-felon American over the age of 18 is eligible to vote but must register. Not all are registered.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-08-2021, 04:11 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Where you come up with this? I'm genuinely curious how you came to this conclusion 

What's the authority the federal government has to compel you to vote?  Rights and liberties come with the right to waive them.  

[hollodero]

(04-08-2021, 03:26 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Well, Australia also banned guns but Re. . . Sorry. How soon I forget. You don't have a problem when Republicans change the rules but aren't happy when someone else offers suggestions to their obstruction. What is this thread about again?

This is a perfect example on how this political duality is so harmful. There's someone who has a different take on something specific, and you immediately identify that person as a Republican because of said disagreement. And then you throw a bunch of unrelated Republican viewpoints at him. 

You're with me or you have to be one of them. No middle ground. There's no middle ground party, after all? Only us and them.

As to the topic at hand, forcing people to vote seems a bit drastic. If someone rather wouldn't, that is a personal decision and I don't see the value in mandating that person to pick a side. Chances are that this would only even further the trenches and the creation of very simplistic arguments for people that aren't informed and don't care.

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-08-2021, 04:25 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Yes, voted for the winning candidate = decided who makes the rules.

Any non-felon American over the age of 18 is eligible to vote but must register. Not all are registered.

I'm not sure strictly "voted for the winning candidate = decided who makes the rules", because while the President gets to sign off on a law (unless a veto proof majority exists), he doesn't strictly "make" the rules, except in cases of executive orders. Congress makes rules (in the sense of laws other than executive orders), and in Congressional voting, you might see a lot more than 30% of registered voters picking the winning Congressman (EDIT: this obviously varies by the specific congressional seat being discussed END EDIT). But I'm veering off course in the discussion here. And I'm willing to concede this. Not trying to be grammar police, but your post was open to some interpretation so I thought I'd point it out.

But now that you've clarified what you mean, I will say based on your criteria of registered voters, even if all of them voted, assuming the same approximately half split as before (we should say like 47%, owing to third party candidates), we're talking about 47% deciding versus 30%. Not that much of a concern in my opinion.

However, what concerns me, and I had hoped this is what you meant originally, is that seeing how many voters are not registered to begin with, the actual percentage of eligible voters deciding elections is probably less than a fourth of the eligible population. And this must be changed. I agree with your larger point.

Still, mandating it is not something I agree with. Or at least I'm on the fence about. While, it might be comparable to filing taxes, I also can see that it could be comparable to everyone being forced to exercise their 2nd amendment right, and therefore, my opinion is not really formed, but leaning towards not mandating.

[CKwi88]

(04-08-2021, 03:53 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: And the reason I have wanted it to be illegal to not vote, in 2016, 58.1% of the registered voters voted(just over 60% in 2020). That means that less than 30% of the registered voters decided who makes the rules in this country

138,000,000 voters out of a population of 249,291,898 of Americans over the age of 18 in 2016. source Less than 28% of 18 and over was enough to put an illiterate buffoon in office for four disastrous years.

This was a concern of mine long before 2016.

Compulsory voting wouldn't really change anything. I'm sure the people who are uninterested in participating in the elections now would be equally uninterested being forced to vote. They'd either cast a blank vote, a null vote or just opt out. 

For the record, I'm kind of ambivalent on compulsory voting. If they had instituted it in 1776 I'd be fine with it, and I'm fine without it now.. The countries that have it usually have a history of framing participation in democratic elections as a duty rather than a right. 

[TheUberHuber]

(04-08-2021, 04:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: This is a perfect example on how this political duality is so harmful. There's someone who has a different take on something specific, and you immediately identify that person as a Republican because of said disagreement. And then you throw a bunch of unrelated Republican viewpoints at him. 

You're with me or you have to be one of them. No middle ground. There's no middle ground party, after all? Only us and them.

As to the topic at hand, forcing people to vote seems a bit drastic. If someone rather wouldn't, that is a personal decision and I don't see the value in mandating that person to pick a side. Chances are that this would only even further the trenches and the creation of very simplistic arguments for people that aren't informed and don't care.

I am not really for and see your point but I would think it would make third parties more of a thing, which I wish we had. Also, I don't know it would force people to pick a side per se. People could always wright in their own name for example.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-08-2021, 04:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: This is a perfect example on how this political duality is so harmful. There's someone who has a different take on something specific, and you immediately identify that person as a Republican because of said disagreement. And then you throw a bunch of unrelated Republican viewpoints at him. 

You're with me or you have to be one of them. No middle ground. There's no middle ground party, after all? Only us and them.

As to the topic at hand, forcing people to vote seems a bit drastic. If someone rather wouldn't, that is a personal decision and I don't see the value in mandating that person to pick a side. Chances are that this would only even further the trenches and the creation of very simplistic arguments for people that aren't informed and don't care.

Excellent point to the first.  As to mandated voting, it's the antithesis of liberty.  Citing paying taxes as an example of mandated action by the government is silly as everyone benefits from how that tax money is spent.  Do you reside in a place with running water, electricity, 911 service (law enforcement, medical and fire), paved roads, traffic signs/lights, garbage collection or street sweeping?  Do you attend a public school, or do your kids?  All of these things, that benefit all of us, are paid for by taxes (in the vast majority of instances).  A better analogy would be selective service, which is mandated for males once they turn eighteen.  Seeing as how that's blatantly sexist it should be changed to any person who turns eighteen.  Individual participation is not required for an election to proceed, there will always be plenty of people who choose to vote, hence mandating participation is illiberal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-08-2021, 05:10 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I am not really for and see your point but I would think it would make third parties more of a thing, which I wish we had. Also, I don't know it would force people to pick a side per se. People could always wright in their own name for example.  

I wish we had a third party option as well, but I don't see how mandated voting would help create one.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(04-08-2021, 04:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: This is a perfect example on how this political duality is so harmful. There's someone who has a different take on something specific, and you immediately identify that person as a Republican because of said disagreement. And then you throw a bunch of unrelated Republican viewpoints at him. 

You're with me or you have to be one of them. No middle ground. There's no middle ground party, after all? Only us and them.

As to the topic at hand, forcing people to vote seems a bit drastic. If someone rather wouldn't, that is a personal decision and I don't see the value in mandating that person to pick a side. Chances are that this would only even further the trenches and the creation of very simplistic arguments for people that aren't informed and don't care.

This was not a casual conversation by two passersby on the street. We have gone rounds before and he always sides with Republicans or parrots their views. I have very, very rarely gotten a middle of the road vibe from him on anything in the past. If we had never chatted before, the interaction would have been much different.

And sorry, if you've misconstrued my stance. I'm Independent, have been since I registered to vote 35 years ago. I've been battered with "you're either with me or **** you" from the right for the last 25 years(around the time Fox News became mainstream), even more so since Obama was elected so I've somewhat adopted their style of discussion with them more or less, just playing the odds. If you can find proof of Republicans trying to find the middle ground in the last 12-13 years, please point it out to me because I've missed it. I lean left because I fear the right, not because the left appeals to me.

When I was 12 or 13 after an election that had a low voter turnout, after seeing that on the news that my Dad and one of his friends was watching, I youthfully remarked, "they should make you vote when you pick up your check or else you don't get paid, work check or welfare." They laughed and said "Republicans would never go for that. They're trying to limit the voter pool, not expand it." Forty years later and nothing has changed.

[CKwi88]

(04-08-2021, 05:10 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: I am not really for and see your point but I would think it would make third parties more of a thing, which I wish we had. Also, I don't know it would force people to pick a side per se. People could always wright in their own name for example.  

It wouldn't, either on the third party or the picking of a side. The two party system is a cause of, well, the two parties. And mandatory voting would have to have blank votes, protest votes, or a way to excuse one's from voting. The uninterested voters would just take that route.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: This was not a casual conversation by two passersby on the street. We have gone rounds before and he always sides with Republicans or parrots their views. I have very, very rarely gotten a middle of the road vibe from him on anything in the past. If we had never chatted before, the interaction would have been much different.

And sorry, if you've misconstrued my stance. I'm Independent, have been since I registered to vote 35 years ago. I've been battered with "you're either with me or **** you" from the right for the last 25 years(around the time Fox News became mainstream), even more so since Obama was elected so I've somewhat adopted their style of discussion with them more or less, just playing the odds. If you can find proof of Republicans trying to find the middle ground in the last 12-13 years, please point it out to me because I've missed it. I lean left because I fear the right, not because the left appeals to me.

When I was 12 or 13 after an election that had a low voter turnout, after seeing that on the news that my Dad and one of his friends was watching, I youthfully remarked, "they should make you vote when you pick up your check or else you don't get paid, work check or welfare." They laughed and said "Republicans would never go for that. They're trying to limit the voter pool, not expand it." Forty years later and nothing has changed.

You'll please forgive me for this observation, but your posting history in this sub-forum would not lend itself to conclude you were a centrist, or anything other than left leaning.

[hollodero]

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: This was not a casual conversation by two passersby on the street. We have gone rounds before and he always sides with Republicans or parrots their views.

He often does not side with democrats. But no, he does not "parrot their views", he states his own views that sure often might lie within the conservative scope, but he clearly is far from being a GoP party soldier. It is just unfair to say otherwise.

I don't say that attempting to defend michaelsean, which he is very well capable of himself anyway. But your view of him is inaccurate, and seeing how you reached your conclusion in this instance, I figure how you did so in times past.

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: And sorry, if you've misconstrued my stance.

I was rather describing than construeing. You confronted him with all kinds of republican stances that were not his own expressed stances.

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I'm Independent, have been since I registered to vote 35 years ago. I've been battered with "you're either with me or **** you" from the right for the last 25 years(around the time Fox News became mainstream), even more so since Obama was elected so I've somewhat adopted their style of discussion with them more or less

This continues to amaze me. Imho. You either critizise their style or make it your own, you can't have it both ways. If you display the same behaviour, you just as much deserve to be called out on it like republicans deserve it in your view.

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: If you can find proof of Republicans trying to find the middle ground in the last 12-13 years, please point it out to me because I've missed it. I lean left because I fear the right, not because the left appeals to me.

I never claimed republicans were different or better or anything really in that regard. That was not my topic.

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: When I was 12 or 13 after an election that had a low voter turnout, after seeing that on the news that my Dad and one of his friends was watching, I youthfully remarked, "they should make you vote when you pick up your check or else you don't get paid, work check or welfare." They laughed and said "Republicans would never go for that. They're trying to limit the voter pool, not expand it." Forty years later and nothing has changed.

You do realize though that one does not need to be a republican to be opposed to mandated voting.
I guess many independents and democrats are not on board with this idea too.

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-08-2021, 05:51 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It wouldn't, either on the third party or the picking of a side. The two party system is a cause of, well, the two parties. And mandatory voting would have to have blank votes, protest votes, or a way to excuse one's from voting. The uninterested voters would just take that route.

Not sure this is entirely true unless you can definitively say that laziness of going to polls was not a reason for not voting.  If mandated, perhaps they might actually cast a vote instead of waiving the right. 

WTS, I'm not in support of mandatory voting.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-08-2021, 05:34 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: This was not a casual conversation by two passersby on the street. We have gone rounds before and he always sides with Republicans or parrots their views. I have very, very rarely gotten a middle of the road vibe from him on anything in the past. If we had never chatted before, the interaction would have been much different.

And sorry, if you've misconstrued my stance. I'm Independent, have been since I registered to vote 35 years ago. I've been battered with "you're either with me or **** you" from the right for the last 25 years(around the time Fox News became mainstream), even more so since Obama was elected so I've somewhat adopted their style of discussion with them more or less, just playing the odds. If you can find proof of Republicans trying to find the middle ground in the last 12-13 years, please point it out to me because I've missed it. I lean left because I fear the right, not because the left appeals to me.

When I was 12 or 13 after an election that had a low voter turnout, after seeing that on the news that my Dad and one of his friends was watching, I youthfully remarked, "they should make you vote when you pick up your check or else you don't get paid, work check or welfare." They laughed and said "Republicans would never go for that. They're trying to limit the voter pool, not expand it." Forty years later and nothing has changed.

Your arguments change based on your perception of the other person’s politics? So I would be ok in suggesting the converse? You want compulsory voting because it would help Democrats. I never really looked at this as a Republican or Democrat topic.