Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by NJlonghorn, Jan 24, 2017.
I think you're being loose with the "F" word.
But NH law allows them to vote there so it's legal.
In Deezestan, people under 25 wouldn't be allowed to vote, so this would be a moot point for most situations. However, there's nothing inherently fraudulent about a college student voting in the city where he goes to college. It has nothing to do with whether he's a dependent or not.
Your opinion is interesting, but it runs into a pesky little problem. Meticulously complying with all applicable legal requirements is not voter fraud.
I can see the argument now: "Your Honor, I don't care what New Hampshire law says. According to the opinion of mchammer on Hornfans, it is voter fraud."
I was curious about the law in other states, so I ran a google search and came up with this link, showing state-by-state law on the issue. I checked a bunch of states (Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, a few others) and they all agree with New Hampshire on this point. So , it's not just New Hampshire Democrats/Socialists who don't care about this issue. It's everyone.
To be clear, the issue I'm talking about is voting at a collegiate place of residence. Same-day registration is a different issue, and deserves consideration. But that isn't the issue Kobach is harping on.
25? Really? I go back to the draft eligible age of 18. If you can die in war as part of the military you should be able to vote for those that send you off to war.
Would you also have an age cap for voting? 70 maybe? The elderly tend to be just a misinformed as the disinterested youth.
Here's a great suggestion on how to deal with voter fraud, and from an unlikely source:
Lott through that out in the commission meeting yesterday to much scorn. That may be the dumbest idea anyone has offered up. The cost alone would be ludicrous.
People who are advocates of as many people voting as possible wouldn't like Deezestan. I believe in the right to vote, but I also think it's possible to abuse your right to vote with ignorance. That should be curtailed through reasonable means, because when one abuses his voting rights, it hurts other people and not just in their preferred candidates losing. I'll admit that a big reason for this is that I've practiced law in front of some very unqualified judges who only held their offices because some very ignorant people voted for them based on their names and nothing else. I've seen injustice done to real people because some judge got elected by having a cool name, like "Kenneth Law" or a bunch of rednecks liking the name "Green" better than the name "Garcia."
Let me take this back to the 18 years old vote. I'm aware of the "old enough to die for your country; old enough to vote" rationale, but to be honest with you, it's more of a slogan than a genuine rationale. As you're well-aware, we didn't apply this until 1971. This wasn't a serious issue during WWII or previous wars. This was a political consequence of Vietnam far more than it was a real principle on which the merits were debated and considered.
In addition, if the "old enough to die for your country" rationale was the real rationale, then why didn't the authors of the 26th Amendment actually apply that rationale? Millions of people who aren't draft eligible are still covered by the 26th Amendment. Furthermore, the Selective Service age is statutory, not constitutional. That means Congress could decide to draft 15 year olds tomorrow. Will those people be allowed to vote? No. Why not? Because "old enough to die" was a false premise.
Finally, why do we restrict voting based on age? We do it because we assume that people younger than a certain age are too immature in terms of priorities and uninformed to vote. It's going to be unfair to some. There are undoubtedly 15 year olds who would make perfectly responsible voters and 30 year olds who are terrible voters, but we simply don't have time to sort all that out every election, so we generalize and draw arbitrary lines. It's legalized age discrimination - pure and simple.
Well, I think that having mature priorities and motivation to become informed usually comes with life experience and assuming responsibility for oneself and others. I use the word "usually" because again, we're generalizing. Are people generally becoming more mature and more responsible at a given age than they were in 1971? Or 1945? I don't think so. Accordingly, I'm less deferential to a younger person's voting rights today than I would have been in 1971 or 1945.
Actually, the elderly are some of the most informed voters in the electorate. I don't necessarily agree with their priorities, but they are very well informed. Look at who volunteers for most political campaigns. They're pretty much always over-represented, and if we're talking about local races and even state races, it's almost entirely a bunch of old people.
So no, I wouldn't restrict voting on the basis of old age. Now, if someone has actually been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent by a court, perhaps I would, but that would be the case regardless of the person's age.
I fully recognize that this issue was put to bed before I was born, and once you give somebody voting rights, there's no disenfranchising them later if it doesn't turn out well. It's pretty much an irreversible move, so don't think this is a serious priority for me.
Proving that MC Hammer is above politics and of great wisdom, I hereby change my proposal: anyone who is still claimed by a parent for tax purposes shouldn't be allowed to vote. Alternatively I would defer to Deez's proposal with a twist: must be 25 or older or serving in the military (or other gov recognized public service function) to vote.
Again, New Hampshire is infamous for this. It is something that has been going on for a long time and well-known to to the various national political campaigns over time.
I get that you guys dont like James O'Keefe. He got a parking ticket once, so this provides all the excuse you need to never consider his undercover videos. But full time avoidance is no way to go through life. So I encourage you to hold your nose, take 5m of your time, and watch the one I posted on the previous page from New Hampshire. If you do, you will see them saying, in their own words not O'Keefe's, that they do not care if you have an ID, they do not care if you are a resident and they do not even care if you ever plan on residing there. The only thing that seems to matter is whether you will be in the state long enough to vote.
That's interesting. You really took this much time out of your day to come in here and tell us you think you are too good for us? Wow.
Here is my alternate theory. The facts, logic and reason dumped in here daily are too much. It is so much easier to retreat into a liberal echo chamber. You feel safer there, never having your ideas and beliefs challenged. No confounding facts,logic or reason to deal with. No triggering events = comfort. I get it. But let us at least be honest about what is really happening.
Think about what would be involved here. Suppose you live in Austin and your kid goes to Baylor on your dime. If you kid wants to vote in Waco, you'd have to turn your tax return over to McLennan County Elections officials. You ok with that? Even if you don't care about your tax privacy, is that practical to do on a large scale?
an old anarchist proverb provides that if voting made any difference it would have been outlawed years ago.
What kind of choice is it when you can vote between Trump and Hillary? I did not bother to pull the lever for either of them.
And the guys standing next to me at the voting booth buy lottery tickets, believe in angels, think who wins football games is important, pick lawyers based on TV ads, and wear camo gear to gun shows.
It's REALLY hard to take O'Keefe seriously when he's been proven to selectively edit and dupe his victims. Motives and context matters.
NJLonghorn has been pretty reasoned in his responses since participating here. Much more than most on this board. What were you saying again about not liking ideas being challenged? I'd love to hear that again.
You're not one to talk. Every time someone challenges something of yours you begin to ******** and move the goalposts. Every........single.......time.
He's been convicted of phone tampering. It is also known that he splices videos and misrepresents "facts".
There are too many to go into here. You need only look through O'Keefe's Wikipedia page to see ample evidence with citations. The most damning are his multiple settlements including $100k to the ACORN worker he misrepresented through selective editing of his pimp/hooker video. This guy is a scheister in every definition of the word. O'Keefe no longer deserves any benefit of the doubt.
Just check any previous argument when you're involved with anyone.
O'Keefe provides links with the unedited footage for those to watch if they so desire. If you don't like his edits go watch the other version.
The raw footage is never as inflammatory as his edited footage. I blame the media for focusing on the more sensational edited pieces. Of course, in all his hit pieces the only one that's been found of wrongdoing (illegal and unethical) has been O'Keefe.
Ok. You've got nothing but an opinion. Got it. Here I was ready to correct the error of my ways but absent any evidence I'll just continue on my merry way.
The lawsuit argued O’Keefe broke a state law barring the secret recording of someone’s voice or image which is illegal in California. Not due to deceptive editing.
The lawsuit he settled for was invasion of privacy of which "publicizes him or her in a false light" is a key part of the legal basis of the argument. The illegal recording was the most obvious infraction for O'Keefe.
The facts are that Mr. Vera immediately reported O'Keefe to the police for human trafficking following the encounter.
He settled because the cost to fight would be around $750,000 so he paid the $100,000. It doesn't prove he did anything wrong(besides illegally taping). The fact that Vera was fired and that ACORN is no longer here tells you that O'Keefe uncovered quite a bit of truth.
It's the same playbook the left plays by. Just like the Planned Parenthood videos where someone is caught doing something illegal the left cries "deceptive editing" even when the full unedited tapes are there for everyone to see.
No, it tells you the damage was already done. The truth is in the GAO and California AG's investigations. By the time those investigations were concluded ACORN was already done (funding been cut) and Vera had been fired.
Nobody took the GAO and Califronia AG seriously because of their left leaning slant. The damage was done because the truth came out about ACORN. Watch the tapes yourself. End of story.