You really expect an answer to that one?
Texas Republican Party Seeks Ban on Critical Thinking
- Thread starter Bubble181
- Start date
- Status
GasBandit
Staff member
No, that's why he flagged it /godwin.
What part of "there are people who pretty much spend their paycheck the second they get it in order to afford the bare necessities of life" don't you understand?
Being poor and having a family counts as bad decisions? Let me paint a picture for you:
I have a co-worker named Mike. Mike is a really good guy, and he's got a work ethic like no one else I know. He rides his bike from 8 Mile and Telegraph to our store at 8 Mile and Haggerty. That's somewhere around 8 miles each way, if he takes the most direct route (which I don't think can be done). In the coldest of winter and the hottest of summer, he rides his bike. Why not drive? He doesn't have a car. Why doesn't he borrow his mom's car? She doesn't have a car. Why doesn't she have a car? She never learned to drive. So he has no reliable access to a car, an almost non-existent pool of people who can teach him to drive, no degree (he's tried, but money is tight and the nearest community college is one mile from our store), and makes a couple of bucks over minimum wage. No choices made by him lead to his state of affairs. It's really easy to paint all poor people with the broad brush of being lazy, immature, etc, but reality disagrees with that.
And you're arguing that allowing those people living in poverty the right to vote constitutes a threat America's well being. The impoverished being overwhelmingly made of minorities. You essentially want only middle class or higher (predominantly white) people to vote. You're right, I did misrepresent you: you don't care if they're male or own land.
Yes, but it was not the state-issued form of ID most of these voter ID laws are require.
I'm aware.
Still, I lost family in the camps and thinking for even a second that I'd support anything that would even hint at those politics is just wrong and inexcusable. I demand an apology and a retraction. It's just such an obvious ploy. Hateful! Pah!
/Jewishreply
now for the worse than godwin reply
I'm sorry, I lost family in the camps too.I'm aware.
Still, I lost family in the camps and thinking for even a second that I'd support anything that would even hint at those politics is just wrong and inexcusable. I demand an apology and a retraction. It's just such an obvious ploy. Hateful! Pah!
/Jewishreply
My Uncle got drunk and fell out of the guard tower.
GasBandit
Staff member
Way to respond with a reply that is both subjective and a fallacious appeal to emotion. For every "Mike" you show me, assuming he exists, I will show you ten people who dicked around in high school, got in trouble with the law, got somebody pregnant before they had even the beginnings of the means to support a family, and yet still spends some of their meager money each month on smokes, booze, drugs, diablo 3, or some other such vice. The statistics show that your typical american in "poverty" actually has a higher standard of living than the average european (the AVERAGE european, not the average european in poverty, the AVERAGE european). Before 2006, this was a land of unparalleled income mobility, where the Mikes of the world stood an excellent chance of bettering their lot so long as they made the right decision. A land that made more new millionaires than any nation ever in the history of mankind. Sure, NOW we're in an economic slump (perpetuated and worsened by the very ideals you adhere to), but previous to this, you basically had to be mentally ill to be chronically poor, outside of catastrophic accidents/acts of god.
Give a poor person a winning lottery ticket, in a few years they'll be broke again. Take away an entrepreneur's wealth, in a few years they'll be at the helm of a new enterprise generating wealth again.
You're the one bringing race into it. And you're still committing ad hominem. I'm the one dealing with all people as equals, you're the one saying minorities can't be expected to take care of themselves. Who's the racist?
It cost even more. You trying to rebut that you got a job with a college ID is not exactly disproving that the poor don't need an ID to get a job.
Hi there...
Either you've moved, or you commute a helluva lot more than Mike. Mike lives about 2mi from me, and your store is about 3mi from my work.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Wait, wait, wait.. he gave exact cross streets, and google maps backs him up.
But it doesn't make his example any less invalid.
Also, why the hell are you guys still in detroit?! How are you still alive?!
Yes, and that's why I called him out on it. His description still says "Grand Rapids," not "Farmington/Novi."
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Ohhhh I see. Yeah, 136 miles is a hell of a commute even by Texas standards.
So how long's your commute from the state of "Warning" to work?
GasBandit
Staff member
About 1.8 miles.So how long's your commute from the state of "Warning" to work?
38,757,253. That is the number of people that the U.S. Census Bureau (page 27)counted as in poverty as of 2006. 13.3% of the population for which poverty status could be discerned. You're saying that nearly 40 million people in this country are lazy, mentally ill, or makers of poor decisions?
Here's an article from the same time showing the then-growing gap between the rich and poor, including this fascinating quote "In America about half of the income disparities in one generation are reflected in the next. In Canada and the Nordic countries that proportion is about a fifth." Seems like maybe your "America was land of opportunity!" rap isn't so accurate/
I'm saying that minorities are disproportionately among the poor and impoverished (FACT). Ergo, any law that will have the greatest effect on the poor an impoverished, for good or ill, will disproportionately impact minorities. Up until the middle part of last century, people in this country were not equals, not under the law or in society. Not even close to it. Now, all people are (supposed to be) equal under the law. Gaining actual equality of opportunity and status under the law, undoing three centuries of stacking the deck against anyone not white and particularly anyone who was black, takes more than two generations. Shock of shocks, I'm sure. Race is still an issue, and will be for a while. Claiming its not will help precisely no one who isn't already doing fine.
My high school ID would have worked too. For a job, as I understand it, any kind of picture ID will do. For voter ID, you have to have a current State ID card that you need the proper documentation to obtain, all of which costs time and money.
Necronic
Staff member
You know...there really were never any "good old days".
When you look at the Eisenhower days you had large amounts of public spending towards things like the interstate highways, or other remnants/children of the PWA.
And if you go farther back, life was pretty much hell for everyone excep Gatsby and his pals. And it wasn't great for them either.[DOUBLEPOST=1342046310][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think it's far more fair to say that 13% of people are too lazy/mentally ill/makers of poor decisions. But i don't think that poverty is a key indicator of that. There are plenty of lazy people with jobs. Plenty of people who make poor decisions and get away with them. And, come on, in some senses mental illness is a pre-requisite for being an A-Type.
GasBandit
Staff member
More than that, probably. That's just the number of those who happen to be poor.
According to the US Treasury department, half of all US taxpayers moved income brackets between 1996 and 2005. Half those in the bottom bracket moved up, and 75% of those in the top 1% moved down. Also: "Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups. " Your move.
That's a recipe for a neverending cycle of victimhood. Since LBJ, we've spent 10 trillion dollars on robin hood fiscal redistribution to eliminate poverty, and not only is there still poverty, there is MORE poverty. Generations of telling them "it's not your fault, you can't be expected to better yourselves" has made these people believe it. But all this is beside the point. You are calling me a racist to attempt to discredit my ideas, when I have not said a single racist thing. My assertions affect poor white people (gasp, they exist!) as well as poor minorities. You are asserting bad logic in saying that anything that affects the poor is racist because there are more nonwhite poor than white. That. Doesn't. Follow. You seem too worked up to argue without falling into fallacies and invective. Maybe you should go have a time out until you're ready to discuss like a grownup?
Did you go to a private high school, or was that high school ID... government issued? Is that an "apple and orange" situation because most high school students aren't of age to vote?
I went to a woefully overcrowded public high school and they issued all the kids a photo ID. It's pretty standard issue these days.
GasBandit
Staff member
We're not talking about infrastructure, and you know it. The largest federal expenses these days are socialist income redistribution. Medicare/medicaid/social security. The interstates cost 500 billion in 2008 dollars over 40 years, and we're spending 3 trillion a year now (and less than a trillion of that is on the military). Hell, we blew more than the interstates cost on stimulus that didn't work.
While I do, on this rare occassion, agree with you (picture IDs are useful and should be mandatory; I probably go a lot further in it than you but whatever), this is a bit uncalled for as an ad hominem, and doesn't really help your point. I's all t rue, up to the last sentence which is just a snark to snark.
GasBandit
Staff member
That was my point, it's a government picture ID.[DOUBLEPOST=1342048281][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think I'm entitled to a little snark after all he's called myself and Covar over the last couple pages.
I got to school from the last week of August to the last week of April at GVSU. For two years of community college, and during the summers, I live on the border of Livonia and Redford and work at 8 and Haggerty. What month is it?
GasBandit:
This debate is pointless. I'm of the opinion that we're moving toward the Gilded Age 2.0, and that people with your political views would only push us even further towards that. You're of the opinion that that people with my political views are pushing this country into an economic situation that will eventually tear it apart. We have a fundamental disagreement in our view of society, one that will not be rectified. We're never going to convince each other of anything, we both can find all the studies and expert opinions we want to back up our contentions, it's just not going to lead to anything constructive.
A school ID card, I.E. a plastic card with your name on it next to a picture of you, be it a college ID or a high school ID, does not serve the same legal purposes as a state issued ID card or a driver's license (both are things you get from the sec of state or DMV. An employer can choose to accept it as a form of ID for purposes of employment, but it would never get you into a polling place. It simply does not carry the necessary information. I'm looking at my GVSU ID, issued by a state college when I enrolled (took me five minutes), and it has my name, a picture of me, my student number, the school's logo, a picture of the campus, the word "student", and the school's motto on it. My driver's license (cost me $25 plus a $40 road test plus a $20-ish dollar testing permit, plus a lot of hours at the sec of state) has...a shitload of my vital stats on it, including address. High school ID was the same story, but less fancy looking. If the majority of these voter ID laws considered work or school photo IDs to sufficient proof of identity, the fuss about them would be somewhat less.
EDIT: I also apologize for insinuating or outright calling you racist, and for calling Covar a dipshit. That's on me. I spend far too much of free time seeking out the arguments (and corresponding refutations thereof) of actual racists, bigots, dipshits, fundies, etc. This leads me to be far, far less diplomatic than I should when encountering people who aren't such things. I enter a world where "poor people are lazy" is usually followed by "therefore, white people are better" and forget that there is a wider world of political disagreement. Again, I apologize. I fucked up.
GasBandit
Staff member
I can agree to disagree, but I find it a dangerous precedent. It ends arguments, and nobody wants that. Thank you, however, for returning to civility.
Well, I can't speak for every state but I know my current and previous states (Texas and Colorado) both offer non-drivers-license state picture IDs for a great deal less than what you just quoted (edit- just checked, the fee for a Texas photo ID -not drivers licence- is 6 dollars), and fill any photo ID legal requirement. (I also still say that your GVSU ID cost you way more than that, even in the first semester alone... and they probably were pretty convinced you are who you say you are to issue it). If you want to talk about making school IDs valid for the purpose, I'd be amenable to that and I think so would most other people, granted sufficient levels of oversight. It doesn't HAVE to be a driver's license... there just has to be government verification of identification to vote in a government election.
You know, while we're at least moderately on the topic of Government Issued ID's, it would be great if either the individual states got together and got their individual forms all lined up, or the federal government took over document standardization for all of the states and territories, so that official government issued documents from the US could approach the usefulness of those same documents from other countries. As someone who spends all day looking at death certificates, photo IDs, birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc., I have to say that the chances of finding the necessary information contained in forms in the US - which can and does vary state to state and territory to territory - is a complete and total crap shoot. There's nothing I like more than sifting through 18 pages of various documents trying to discern someone's relationship to another person, and whether or not they're actually next-of-kin.
Oh wait, yes there is. I much prefer some of the Central and South American countries (to be honest, I'm not sure off the top of my head which ones, they just happen to be in Spanish), where I only need one document to give me the decedent's age, name, date of birth, date of death, place of death, cause of death, date of marriage (if any), name of spouse (if any), date of divorce (again, if any), name of second/third/fourth/fifth, etc. spouse, names and DoB of any children, parents' names; and one photo ID. Sweden, Norway, Finland, and The Netherlands do a pretty good job too. The only time the US comes anywhere close to providing all of that information in one handy place is if the decedent was active duty military AND died while on deployment, or if they were embassy staff AND died while overseas.
Oh wait, yes there is. I much prefer some of the Central and South American countries (to be honest, I'm not sure off the top of my head which ones, they just happen to be in Spanish), where I only need one document to give me the decedent's age, name, date of birth, date of death, place of death, cause of death, date of marriage (if any), name of spouse (if any), date of divorce (again, if any), name of second/third/fourth/fifth, etc. spouse, names and DoB of any children, parents' names; and one photo ID. Sweden, Norway, Finland, and The Netherlands do a pretty good job too. The only time the US comes anywhere close to providing all of that information in one handy place is if the decedent was active duty military AND died while on deployment, or if they were embassy staff AND died while overseas.
A state ID, equivalent to a driver's license for legal purposes, costs $10 here. Which is a generally affordable price. However, the place where you get them is open 9AM to 5PM, except on Wednesdays which are 11 am to 7PM. 7 locations throughout the state are open on Saturday, from 9am to Noon and 9AM to 7PM on Wednesdays. Those locations are also guaranteed to not close for an hour lunch. Suffice it to say, that makes even getting the $10 ID card a hardship (remember, Detroit is the biggest and poorest metro area in the state and has virtually no public transit) for people. However, we disagree on what constitutes "fair" and on who deserves the vote (I view it as a qualified right, you seem to view it as privilege), so that's fairly moot.
GasBandit
Staff member
Open six days a week, of varying hours, constitutes an undue burden? Because they can't be expected to have a day off at any point in the 4 years between elections? How do they make it to the polls on election day?
Wait, voting isn't a right? When did that get suggested? It's patently wrong.
Honestly, I believe that everyone should have the power to direct their future, even if they do not have the ability. I don't feel that anyone should ever be stripped of the right to vote. Not for felonies, stupidity, religion, location, race, nor any other reason except death. If stupid and/or short-sighted people want to vote in such a way as to ruin their society, that is entirely their prerogative. If smart and/or long-term folks don't want to be a part of it, they can either rebel or pick up and go, and it is entirely in their best interest to do one, another, or both. Stupid people have a hard time organizing themselves (unless they are herded, presumably by a smarter person with one or more agenda), so it shouldn't take that many "smart" votes to cancel out a noticeably larger number of "dumb" ones simply because not as many dumb ones will go to the polls (for one reason or another). On the other hand, if the smart people leave, the society of the dumb will suffer its own punishment and collapse, letting the smart ones move back in again later to set up shop, presumably with their position strengthened by their time amongst a higher concentration of other smart people.
Anything...no, Everything else is flat-out discrimination.
--Patrick
to be fair, us Belgians are OBLIGATED by law to vote, and our civil halls/city hall/county halls/where we HAVE to go and get our IDs every 5 years don't have opening hours that broad or easy to get to. 09h-12h 4 days a week and maybe 18h-20h once a week in most cities. Not having one is punishable with a pretty bad fine so.... You know, even IF you say it's a right to vote and there shoudn't be too many burdens in between...Those hours are relatively broad. It's not a right but a duty here and even we have to go through more trouble.
I may be reading his intent wrong there.
Necronic
Staff member
Wow, that's a LOT cheaper than I expected.
Edit: I wish the government would increase the age for Social Security payouts to 70. What a difference that would make, and it's so obvious that it needs to be done.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, you're not. PatrThom is voicing a belief, not constitutional reality. The US Federal Constitution makes no issue of an individual right to vote - only forms the electoral college and leaves their selection up to the states to figure out. And, how it works out, you're not even voting for a presidential candidate - you're really voting for an elector who has pledged to cast an electoral vote for the candidate you want. And here's the kicker... there's absolutely nothing to stop that elector from changing his mind at any time and completely disregarding/invalidating your vote. And it's all legal, constitutional, and has precedent.
GasBandit
Staff member
More than 2, but you're misreading them. Here they are, gathered off Wikipedia:
In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.
- 15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
- 19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
- 23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
- 24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
- 26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age
Here's how wikipedia puts it (I know, bad to quote wikipedia but it's a good place to find summaries):
Or in other words, as long as you're not being stopped from voting for any of the above reasons, you can be kept from voting for any other reason the states deem fit to use. Does that sound like a "right" to you?
Necronic
Staff member
However, by identifying places where it is illegal to remove the right to vote explicitly implies a pre-existing right to vote. You can't restrict something that doesn't exist. I think this is one of those rare places where the 9th ammendment comes in as well (although that may be a stretch).
Ed: Also, from your supreme court reference, you missed a part
Ed: Also, from your supreme court reference, you missed a part
Well, they did that. So the citizen has a federal constitutional right to vote for electors.
GasBandit
Staff member
And if a state chooses to undo/redo it's criteria for appointing members to the electoral college, what happens to that "right?" It goes away. Isn't that against the very definition of a "right?" Furthermore, as I said... if your "right" can be abridge for any reason that government feels like except a specific list of a half dozen reasons, how is it a right?.
From USconstitution.net:
[DOUBLEPOST=1342109147][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, Jesse Jackson Jr. sure thought we don't have a constitutional right to vote... and it spurred him to propose an amendment.
Necronic
Staff member
I don't disagree that the state can abridge your right to vote. And really the argument of whether or not it is a fundamental right to be able to vote is a bit beside the point, because there is one place where it is explicity stated that it can't be abridged. In a poll tax. If the voter ID system costs money to vote ,it's a poll tax.
And I know you think that the 10-20$ that a voter ID is insignificant. But that's pretty much exactly the cost the old poll taxes were that started these things. Really the argument is "How is this NOT a poll tax?" It's the same amount of money. It disproportionately affects certain groups.
The thing is, based on your repeated statements, I think that you don't really have a problem with a poll tax. Which is a valid opinion.
Except that's it's unconstitutional.
And I know you think that the 10-20$ that a voter ID is insignificant. But that's pretty much exactly the cost the old poll taxes were that started these things. Really the argument is "How is this NOT a poll tax?" It's the same amount of money. It disproportionately affects certain groups.
The thing is, based on your repeated statements, I think that you don't really have a problem with a poll tax. Which is a valid opinion.
Except that's it's unconstitutional.
- Status