Joe Biden Innocent or Not Guilty

I have no problem with requiring the proof of registration card. It is free to the voter and delivered to them for free.

Huck wrote:There is a lot more potential "cost" to lower income citizens when it isn't necessary.

Such as?

Head Idiot wrote:Chicago is famous for this historically. Do you believe the Democrats just stopped doing this in Chicago? Our state is rife with all sorts of political fraud, but they suddenly grew a conscious about this singular issue?

https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/10/24/chicago-and-rigged-elections-the-history-is-even-crazier-than-youve-heard/

This article describes what has been done in the past.  How would Voter ID laws change anything that could still be done today? (the article lists the way things have changed to eliminate most all of these past issues)

Forgive me for being suspicious of a system put in place and ran by those same Democrats that profited from the previous corruption- Michael Madigan who first gained entry into Dem politics in Chicago in 1969.

Transportation to the facility. Day care costs or added transportation costs for kids. Lost wages. Having to repeat all that if they forgot something. I have had to leave and then return to the DMV because I forgot something. Easy for me with a car, the ability to afford gas, and not working an hourly job with differing hours daily.

Head Idiot wrote:

Huck wrote:Making the ID free is just a start.  There is a lot more potential "cost" to lower income citizens when it isn't necessary.  Why should voting require a photo ID?

How about any ID? How about at least the proof of registration card they give you in the mail? Something at least.

Right now, the only proof of who you are is an address and signature. Which was checked at my polling place, but me and my wife were the only ones there at 430pm. I would imagine at rush time there isn't a real scrutiny of those.

What evidence is there that voting fraud such as this is being perpetrated on a widespread scale? There may or may not be issues with other types of election fraud but, by and large, people showing up and voting illegally is not one of them.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/resources-voter-fraud-claims

We already have enough laws. We shouldn't be creating new laws unless there is clearly a reason a law is needed.

Head Idiot wrote:Forgive me for being suspicious of a system put in place and ran by those same Democrats that profited from the previous corruption- Michael Madigan who first gained entry into Dem politics in Chicago in 1969.

Fine. Be suspicious. The Trump administration can be suspicious. They should investigate and bring to light every example of fraud that they can. Set an example. But you asked for reasons why a liberal would be against Voter ID and I have provided mine.

19delta wrote:
We already have enough laws. We shouldn't be creating new laws unless there is clearly a reason a law is needed.

That's a reason to not pass a law?

Huck wrote:Voting is a right.

And to get assistance does not require photo id, which is oftentimes the costly and time consuming aspect.

But for most of American history, voting has been a privilege, not a right. It's only been maybe the last 50 years or so since suffrage has been greatly expanded. However, in the last 15-20 years, there has been a concentrated effort to reverse that trend and disenfranchise voters and return this country to a time when voting was clearly a privilege. I find that greatly troubling.

Head Idiot wrote:

19delta wrote:
We already have enough laws. We shouldn't be creating new laws unless there is clearly a reason a law is needed.

That's a reason to not pass a law?

Uh, yes!

Why do you want unnecessary laws?

You have to pass laws for things that haven't happened yet. Otherwise, your legislature is just reacting to a whole bunch of bad stuff that already happened.

One of the main tenets of the Biden campaign is passing legislation for future events.

Huck wrote:Voting is a right.

And to get assistance does not require photo id, which is oftentimes the costly and time consuming aspect.

Huck, would there be a large section of a political party contend that "Assistance" whether it be food, medical care, housing, and other social programs be considered a Right?

I AGREE these things are absolutely necessary for citizens of this country. Where I DISAGREE is that the Gov should be guaranteeing these things nearly unconditionally. While this is loosely related to the discussion regarding voting ID, it goes with a larger metric regarding getting something for nothing. The Presidency and any public election should not operate without near 100% confidence. If any political party is afraid of identity concerns, then why would that party not fund proof of identity. Lord knows the stupid amounts of money spent on campaigns by each party could be used for something better than trashing the other side. Why not take the doubt out of voter fraud by getting legal IDs for your voters. I like the concept of a free voter ID. I understand the hassle and hidden costs of obtaining an ID, but would that not be worth it to gain the confidence in the vote. Would it also not be worth it to shut the claimants of voter fraud? I liken it to the concept of people afraid to take a drug test, if you are clean, take it. DUI people only have to refuse the breathalyzer if you are trying to hide something...... I never have had a problem submitting to a test because I knew I was not DUI.

The overarching problem with this country IHMO is that too many folks are being able to get things for nothing and do not have any intention to contribute. Some feel that it is not the responsibility of the Gov to provide all of these things when the benefactors have no skin in the game. Should there not be any skin in the game to vote? Do we want either side voting with only selfish motives taking place? Why is it that a gigantic disproportionate amount of people on Gov assistance are traditional Liberal Dem voters that continue to promise increased GOV social programs?

So much of the country is not diametrically opposed politically, but rather economically. Unfortunately there is just so much blood in a turnip.

Hopefully the next President can get some movement on social programs that actually work instead of perpetuating our poor into generational poverty like so many of the last misguided Presidents.

I appreciate everyone's viewpoint on this. I may not agree, but do like the contrasting opinions.

Head Idiot wrote:You have to pass laws for things that haven't happened yet. Otherwise, your legislature is just reacting to a whole bunch of bad stuff that already happened.

One of the main tenets of the Biden campaign is passing legislation for future events.

But the bad stuff you want to prevent isn't happening. So the law isn't needed.

Are you really arguing that a reason we need new, bad laws is because Biden wants other new, bad laws? Like these bad laws will cancel each other out?

general maximus wrote:Huck, would there be a large section of a political party contend that "Assistance" whether it be food, medical care, housing, and other social programs be considered a Right?

Yes. Quite frankly, I do not know how everyone would not consider them to be a right. Where the difference of opinion should, and often does, come in, is how to provide these rights to those who truly need the assistance, which is what you have said.

I disagree with likening voter fraud to drugs and DUI. It's much easier to prove the latter is an actual problem than it is the former. And to me, and most everyone, potential problems are not equal to actual problems.

I agree with voter id if it is 100% free to the citizens. While shutting up claimants of voter fraud is a nice idea, I shouldn't have to fund a solution to a problem I do not believe exists. This is a point of view I would think most conservatives would be on board with.

Also, general, for full disclosure's sake, I am a Schlarman grad, so I hope that does not make you dismiss everything I say just on general principal.

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:You have to pass laws for things that haven't happened yet. Otherwise, your legislature is just reacting to a whole bunch of bad stuff that already happened.

One of the main tenets of the Biden campaign is passing legislation for future events.

But the bad stuff you want to prevent isn't happening. So the law isn't needed.

Are you really arguing that a reason we need new, bad laws is because Biden wants other new, bad laws?  Like these bad laws will cancel each other out?

Not at all, but as you seem to be all aboard the Biden train, I thought I'd point that out.

Personally I think as little government as possible is preferable. But that is certainly not the direction we're going.

Huck wrote:
Yes.  Quite frankly, I do not know how everyone would not consider them to be a right.  Where the difference of opinion should, and often does, come in, is how to provide these rights to those who truly need the assistance, which is what you have said.

I don't know that I'd go as far to say they're a right, but I certainly don't think it's a right to take from me to give those things to others.

Head Idiot wrote:


I don't know that I'd go as far to say they're a right, but I certainly don't think it's a right to take from me to give those things to others.

If you don't think not dying from hunger is a right and you wouldn't gladly give something up to prevent it, then I don't know what to say.......

I hope you mean, you don't want to be forced to give something up to support others who have squandered what they have.  I understand that.  But to say that avoiding starvation is not a right?  To say you would not want to help someone avoid it?

Huck wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:


I don't know that I'd go as far to say they're a right, but I certainly don't think it's a right to take from me to give those things to others.

If you don't think not dying from hunger is a right and you wouldn't gladly give something up to prevent it, then I don't know what to say.......

I hope you mean, you don't want to be forced to give something up to support others who have squandered what they have.  I understand that.  But to say that avoiding starvation is not a right?  To say you would not want to help someone avoid it?

It is not the government's job to pose as the middle man in that transaction. That's what I'm saying.

Ok.  Then you have the right to avail yourself of the democratic process and vote for leaders who will end that practice.  

What would you propose as an alternative if the government dropped out of that role?

19delta wrote:

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

Of course its a problem. Everyone wants to win...

So it is about winning, not about getting it right. Okay.

I thought we were talking about picking a president?

We were.  Point is, picking the president is not the end all, be all.  Those in the minority may not get their way with the presidential selection, but that does not mean they aren't represented or under represented, as most arguments in favor of the EC imply.

i agree, the EC could use some updating. many of our voting systems need some updating (i.e. voter ID; signature verification; citizenship, residency & eligibility checks)

How about making voting mandatory? Like jury duty?

would folks sell their votes?
Australia does it. they (small) fine folks who don't vote

Huck wrote:

general maximus wrote:Huck, would there be a large section of a political party contend that "Assistance" whether it be food, medical care, housing, and other social programs be considered a Right?

Yes.  Quite frankly, I do not know how everyone would not consider them to be a right.  Where the difference of opinion should, and often does, come in, is how to provide these rights to those who truly need the assistance, which is what you have said.

I disagree with likening voter fraud to drugs and DUI.  It's much easier to prove the latter is an actual problem than it is the former.  And to me, and most everyone, potential problems are not equal to actual problems.  

I agree with voter id if it is 100% free to the citizens.  While shutting up claimants of voter fraud is a nice idea, I shouldn't have to fund a solution to a problem I do not believe exists.  This is a point of view I would think most conservatives would be on board with.

Also, general, for full disclosure's sake, I am a Schlarman grad, so I hope that does not make you dismiss everything I say just on general principal.

As for Schlarman Grad, Nah, I was Catholic back in the day until my mom got divorced and we got kicked out of St. Francis in Ottawa. There is only one Schlarman guy I cannot stand. Currently the Principal there and I play cards often with a local group. He is one of my favorite guys in education of all time.

I agree, that people should have access to those things, but like you said, getting them to every person is a mega problem. The Government cannot be the sole fix for that. We have to help them out of poverty, not make them dependent upon the money from the Gov.

Regarding Potential Problems........ They are never a problem until it is a real problem and when it becomes a problem, it is often too late to fix easily. But an ID would be a reasonably easy way to fix any potential problem of voter fraud.

Huck wrote:Ok.  Then you have the right to avail yourself of the democratic process and vote for leaders who will end that practice.  

What would you propose as an alternative if the government dropped out of that role?

I do.

Charity and people solving the problem themselves. As the world operated for millennia before.

Creating a system to redistribute wealth has not solved the problem. Dedicating over 50% of the nation's budget to this "right" hasn't begun to move the needle. The "war on poverty" started in 1968 hasn't dropped the problem more than 5% in 50+ years.

It has however created generations of people beholden to the state who frequently vote to further expand the government to "fix" the problem.

ramblinman wrote:

tps wrote:He also thinks life isn't worth living after 75.

No, he doesn't think that at all, and I challenge you to show me where he said that.

A quote of his from the article you linked:

"I would like to maintain my vigor, my intellectual capacity, my productivity, all the way through to the end."

All he is saying is that, FOR HIM, he does not want to take life prolonging drugs, vaccines or undergo heroic medical interventions after he turns 75.  That is not saying that he doesn't think life isn't worth living after that age.  Nor is he saying that his decision regarding how he wants to live until he dies should be applied to everyone.  

His position is not much different from terminal cancer patients who refuse chemo and/or radiation because they don't want to prolong the inevitable and live in worse health for longer than they would have if they were to take those measures.  It's not far removed from healthcare powers of attorney that contain a do not resuscitate order.  Everybody has an end to their lives.  What he is choosing to do is all about managing his particular end of life with dignity HIS way.  I applaud him for that.

in the one article, his system of distribution uses Standard expected years of life lost (SEYLL) as a metric for vaccine distribution.
quote from his interview
"We asked what metrics best embody those phases, and that’s how we got to SEYLL, because it takes into account how many years you live, compared with the world average, and it’s a uniform measure across countries." 
not exactly sure but doesn't that mean age of the person will be a factor in when you get the shot? so if you've already lived long enough you get the shot later? go slow, remember i'm a dumb hick...

in the other article he says he's ok living only until 75, he's kinda showing his cards about life expectancy, granted, his life.  I'm not a mind reader, just my opinion. 

i do agree with the idea that i don't want to be bedridden for the last part of my life.

Head Idiot wrote:

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:You have to pass laws for things that haven't happened yet. Otherwise, your legislature is just reacting to a whole bunch of bad stuff that already happened.

One of the main tenets of the Biden campaign is passing legislation for future events.

But the bad stuff you want to prevent isn't happening. So the law isn't needed.

Are you really arguing that a reason we need new, bad laws is because Biden wants other new, bad laws?  Like these bad laws will cancel each other out?

Not at all, but as you seem to be all aboard the Biden train, I thought I'd point that out.

Personally I think as little government as possible is preferable. But that is certainly not the direction we're going.

Yet you are advocating a new law that would vastly expand the government's authority.

More government = less freedom

"All about the Biden train"? Man...you really are Captain Straw Man.

Head Idiot wrote:

Huck wrote:Ok.  Then you have the right to avail yourself of the democratic process and vote for leaders who will end that practice.  

What would you propose as an alternative if the government dropped out of that role?

I do.

Charity and people solving the problem themselves. As the world operated for millennia before.

Creating a system to redistribute wealth has not solved the problem. Dedicating over 50% of the nation's budget to this "right" hasn't begun to move the needle. The "war on poverty" started in 1968 hasn't dropped the problem more than 5% in 50+ years.

It has however created generations of people beholden to the state who frequently vote to further expand the government to "fix" the problem.

jobs help take the government out of that role. most people want to work.
2019 had the lowest poverty rate ever - then covid.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-poverty-rate-fell-to-record-low-in-2019-but-the-coronavirus-is-reversing-the-gains-2020-09-15

unemployment was pretty low in 2019 also.