Early voting started here today. Something that’s been bothering me since I started voting @ age 18- when you cast your vote to decide who’s going to be possibly the most powerful person in the world they don’t even require you to show any ID!
For Christsake, I have to show an ID to by a frigging bottle of wine! All this talk by politicians about cleaning up voter fraud and we still don’t have something as basic as requiring a voter to prove who they are…can someone please explain what’s going on here?
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]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]
Or get on a plane. Or buy a beer. Or buy cigarettes. Or buy a can of chew. Or cash a check.
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Stupid question. How else could the homeless or the illegal immigrants vote Democrat?
mike
Does being a homeless citizen void their right to vote(honest question)? [/quote]
No, I’m just pointing out the fact that most homeless don’t vote and those that do are being taken advantage of by voter registration, i.e. “vote democrat and we’ll give you a cigarette” groups.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
They should go back to when only property owners could vote.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
rainjack 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[/quote]
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.
They should at least check to make sure you don’t have a dead hooker in your trunk. ID or not, a dead hooker is a pretty good sign that you are not fit to vote.
On a more serious note, it’s interesting that most conservatives I know complain about how the government isn’t intervening with people’s lives enough when it comes to voting. And most liberals think the government should have very little control over voter requirements. Oh, the irony.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
They should at least check to make sure you don’t have a dead hooker in your trunk. ID or not, a dead hooker is a pretty good sign that you are not fit to vote.
On a more serious note, it’s interesting that most conservatives I know complain about how the government isn’t intervening with people’s lives enough when it comes to voting. And most liberals think the government should have very little control over voter requirements. Oh, the irony.[/quote]
Actually, insuring illegals don’t vote means that citizens of this country votes count like they should thus ensuring the people maintain control of the government. Getting votes from people who aren’t supposed to have the right gives the government more power over it’s actual constituents.
[quote]orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
rainjack 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]
Sometimes when the frog juice wears off and you are actually lucid - you make sense.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
rainjack 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.
Sometimes when the frog juice wears off and you are actually lucid - you make sense.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, I have the most potent frogs in the ´hood.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
They should at least check to make sure you don’t have a dead hooker in your trunk. ID or not, a dead hooker is a pretty good sign that you are not fit to vote.
On a more serious note, it’s interesting that most conservatives I know complain about how the government isn’t intervening with people’s lives enough when it comes to voting. And most liberals think the government should have very little control over voter requirements. Oh, the irony.[/quote]
Look, I do not know why you need to bring this up, but seriously, one dead hooker in decade and you´ll never be of the hook?