It's Official - Republican Platform anti Poker

[BelgoSuisse]

idk how this got into a Christian vs. Muslim thing, and I'm pretty much anti all religion, but it's pretty hard to argue that today Christianity is more dangerous than Islam. The people today who utilize Christianity for violence are considered super extremists and even people like the Westboro Baptist Church are ostracized by mainstream Christianity. Meanwhile there are actual governments in this world right now that impose Islam as the official religion and enforce doctrines that include stoning people to death, treating women as property, etc. I'm not saying Islam is necessarily the reason for that, I'm just saying that right now there is not much harm for which Christianity is the justification where anyone with any power recognizes it. That's not the case at all for Islam. The majority of countries for which Islam is the law of the land are pretty much fascist barbaric states whereas there are pretty much no countries left that oppress people and force them to convert to Christianity.

I'm atheist and I certainly don't want to defend Islam, but even if you only consider the last few years, there were a lot more Christians killing Muslims than the other way round. Most of those Christians being American or allied soldiers in Irak and Afghanistan.

Sure there were probably even more Muslims killing Muslims and in the case of Afghanistan there were legitimate reasons for the war, but on the other hand Bush did use the word "crusade" and you can't entirely dismiss the religious out of his decision making process

 

[Tonawanda]

Crystal Ball?

Most likely it means he would prefer censitary suffrage to equal suffrage and requiring the ID is a way to get there by making it harder for poor people to vote.

Theory/Opinion/ Conclusion based on ?

 

[dmorris68]

I'm a moderate and don't really align myself with either liberals or conservatives in the partisan sense. I hold views that cross party lines, I have voted both ways, and I'm sure I'll continue doing so. And I too tend to avoid the public debate of politics, because I will inevitably piss off both sides with my views, lol.

I have issues with both major candidates, and am still struggling on how I'm going to vote -- I'm quite possibly going with a 3rd party if for no other reason than I feel unless/until more people do so, we'll never break the party duopoly that we have now.

That said, on the subject of voter ID, I have a hard time understanding why the liberals try to pass this off as a class-warfare thing to alienate poor voters.

In this country you need a government issued photo ID (or the documentation requisite to acquire one) to do just about anything. Get a job, rent housing, open a bank account, apply for public assistance, drive (ldo), you name it. Given the prevalence of ID requirements in US society and the inherent value in having one, plus the fact that obtaining an ID is not cost-prohibitive even for the poor, I fail to see why it's such a burden as to alienate poor people at the polls. Here in GA, $20 will get you a state-issued ID good for 5 years, but if you qualify (presumably under income guidelines) then a voter ID card good for 8 years is issued for free. I haven't researched but would assume that requirements and fees in other states with voter ID laws would be similar.

The only class of people I can see voter ID alienating would be non-citizen immigrants. Illegal immigrants cannot legally vote, so I have no problem excluding them. Legal immigrants with green cards cannot vote in national elections until they become citizens. Don't get me wrong: I am not anti-immigration and am pro limited amnesty, and feel we are in dire need of immigration reform that doesn't punish the otherwise honest immigrants among us, so don't take that as a shot at all immigrants. But since by law non-citizen immigrants are not afforded the right to vote anyway, that's not a valid argument against voter ID.

So could someone who believes voter ID requirements alienates poor people and minorities please explain why?

 

[hackmeplz]

I'm atheist and I certainly don't want to defend Islam, but even if you only consider the last few years, there were a lot more Christians killing Muslims than the other way round. Most of those Christians being American or allied soldiers in Irak and Afghanistan.

Sure there were probably even more Muslims killing Muslims and in the case of Afghanistan there were legitimate reasons for the war, but on the other hand Bush did use the word "crusade" and you can't entirely dismiss the religious out of his decision making process

The reasons the US attacked the Middle East had nothing to do with religion. The reason the Middle East is constantly seeking to commit acts of terror against the US and other Western countries has a lot to do with religion. Obviously religion is not the only reason, and the people who think it's just crazy Muslims that hate us for our freedom are pretty ignorant, but if you read Bin Laden's letter he talks a lot about Islam and justifies the attacks with his religion, while I think it is quite a stretch to say the reason we are killing people in the Middle East has anything to do with religion.

 

[Tonawanda]

Yes

Why does this make your top 8 issues? Do you think voter fraud is an issue?

Not likely voter fraud has made a difference in a presidential election. Who knows this year? The same cannot be said about local elections.
I am concerned about all alleged fraudulent activity: registration fraud,absentee-ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, thecasting of ballots by ineligible voters, double voting, and voterimpersonation.

Yes, there have been studies that conclude a very small percentage of the complaintsreceived are verified as fraud. How many illegal votes are counted that nocomplaints have been made on? There have also been numerous cases of voterfraud identified, and more so, other forms of election fraud committed in recent years. And my contention is that it is next to impossible to know howmuch fraud is really occurring considering the limited resources election officialshave at the local level, and voter identification is important to the assure afair process.
It was stated here during a political discussion: "that my vote offsets your vote". How many illegal votes does it take to offset every singlevote of every single member of this forum?
I believe it is the responsibility of every citizen to clearly identify themselves, and the government to make sure that every citizen is given the opportunity to have their vote counted, and make sure that everyone of our votes is counted and not offset by illegal votes.

 

[triplesyxx]

i

Really disappointed with the GOP this year. Any Ron Paul supporters out there?

 

[xdeucesx]

"Just because a man is dead doesn't mean he loses his right to vote" -LBJ

voting fraud is most certainly an issue lol

 

[woohoo sue]

i request a mailin voter form and sent it in last election only to find out a month after the election that my signature didn't match the one on file so my vote was cast out. so yeah i felt my voted didn't count that year for sure.

 

[triplesyxx]

votin fraud is outrageous, ive heard so many people defend the electoral college and yes I don't know as much as i should about it, but while i was watching the mayor of atlanta on the news the other day (a democrat), he made sure to make it well known that although an overwhelming majority of the state are mitt romney supporters, that it didnt matter because of the electoral college and that as of right now the state of georgia is still going to be won by obama, either way, both sides of capital hill are absolutely corrupt and paid for in full before they ever step foot into office.

 

[hackmeplz]

although an overwhelming majority of the state are mitt romney supporters, that it didnt matter because of the electoral college and that as of right now the state of georgia is still going to be won by obama

umm how would the electoral college possibly enable this to happen?

 

[dmorris68]

but while i was watching the mayor of atlanta on the news the other day (a democrat), he made sure to make it well known that although an overwhelming majority of the state are mitt romney supporters, that it didnt matter because of the electoral college and that as of right now the state of georgia is still going to be won by obama,

The electoral college really has nothing to do with voter fraud or organized corruption, although I agree it's an anachronistic construct that should go away. Let the popular vote decide the president (and I say that knowing full well that Gore, whom I despise, would have won in 2000 with the popular vote, but so be it).

Electors are appointed by state legislature and are a mirror of its partisanship -- Republican dominated states field Republican-appointed electors and vice-versa. It's extremely rare for an electorate to vote opposite their party (a "faithless electorate") especially when it also goes against the overwhelming popular vote in their state. 24 states actually have laws that punish faithless electors, but in virtually all but maybe swing states it's considered political suicide. It's so rare, in fact, that only once in the history of US presidential elections, in 1836, did an organized group of faithless electors actually change the outcome of an election -- but it was for naught, since the Senate overruled the electorate anyway.

Georgia is not a swing state, although there are predictions it may become one by 2020. It is decidedly not one in 2012, and will almost certainly vote in Romney.

So I'd say the mayor was dreaming and spouting political BS trying to rally his troops and the misinformed. Georgia has voted Republican for 6 of the last 7 elections, with the exception being Bill Clinton's first election in 1992, but not again in 1996. I've seen absolutely no sign that the vote in GA will be even close let alone a solid win for Obama.

 

[Big_Rudy]

....That said, on the subject of voter ID, I have a hard time understanding why the liberals try to pass this off as a class-warfare thing to alienate poor voters.

In this country you need a government issued photo ID (or the documentation requisite to acquire one) to do just about anything. Get a job, rent housing, open a bank account, apply for public assistance, drive (ldo), you name it. Given the prevalence of ID requirements in US society and the inherent value in having one, plus the fact that obtaining an ID is not cost-prohibitive even for the poor, I fail to see why it's such a burden as to alienate poor people at the polls. Here in GA, $20 will get you a state-issued ID good for 5 years, but if you qualify (presumably under income guidelines) then a voter ID card good for 8 years is issued for free. I haven't researched but would assume that requirements and fees in other states with voter ID laws would be similar.

The only class of people I can see voter ID alienating would be non-citizen immigrants. Illegal immigrants cannot legally vote, so I have no problem excluding them. Legal immigrants with green cards cannot vote in national elections until they become citizens. Don't get me wrong: I am not anti-immigration and am pro limited amnesty, and feel we are in dire need of immigration reform that doesn't punish the otherwise honest immigrants among us, so don't take that as a shot at all immigrants. But since by law non-citizen immigrants are not afforded the right to vote anyway, that's not a valid argument against voter ID.

So could someone who believes voter ID requirements alienates poor people and minorities please explain why?

So glad to see someone finally respond to this issue of requiring ID to vote somehow "alienating" the poor in an enlightened manner. The whole issue is just a liberal "talking point" to try to cast the bad, old Republicans as trying to stifle legitimate voters when, in fact, meeting the requirements to vote are not onerous at all. Imo, the left always harps on this point simply because they know illegal voting is likely to break Democrat rather than Republican, so it favors their causes/candidates. Therefore they (the Democrats) have no interest in cleaning-up the vote/voting process.