[Mongoose]

bottom line, you shouldn't get to strike down a valid law by saying "oh, but it will hurt people who can't be bothered to follow it!"  just as you can say it's a power grab by the republicans trying to stop democrats from voting, you could say it's a power grab by the democrats looking the other way with their voters/liberal organizations committing fraud.  and to me, stopping fraud FAR outweighs making people go stand in line at the DMV.

...except voter fraud is proven to be minuscule compared to the number of people who are being adversely affected by these new laws.

Let's try a different question: even if you (not just you personally, but in general) agree with the concept of voter IDs, do you at least agree that trying to shove the laws through a few months before the election that will be impacted by them is an extremely suspect move?  Like, if the laws had instead implemented mandatory IDs by the 2016 or 2014 elections, I'd have far less of a problem with them.  As it stands, there's a very clear ulterior motive at work, i.e. the two clips posted above.  Man my state is awesome.

As far as the general concept of a national ID card goes, it's an idea that will pretty much never gain widespread traction here, and I'm inclined to agree with the dissenters.  A valid ID is required for certain privileges, such as purchasing alcohol or operating a vehicle, but basic citizenship, and by extension voting, is a birthright.  All you really need to validate citizenship is a birth certificate showing you were born here, or failing that, some sort of public notice of birth.  (I know there's some way to get a birth certificate if you never had one, though I'm not sure of the exact requirements.)  For the purposes of the federal government, your Social Security number serves as a de facto national ID, so why should there be another layer placed on top of that?  It invites unnecessary bureaucracy, and certainly raises the "Big Brother" specter that gets people in this country very antsy.

[BrotherBryon]

As Mongoose said it really comes down to the timing. While I'm not apposed to being required to present a photo ID in order to vote it is irresponsible to force through such regulation less than 6 months before a major election. If it is to become the norm than citizens need proper time and awareness to comply with laws that effect their basic rights. If such laws were passed with enforcement to begin in 2014 or 2016 then it would be fine but as it stands now it does equate to a power grab as it disenfranchises a major support block for the competing party.

[IronBeer]

As Mongoose said it really comes down to the timing. While I'm not opposed to being required to present a photo ID in order to vote it is irresponsible to force through such regulation less than 6 months before a major election. If it is to become the norm then citizens need proper time and awareness to comply with laws that affect their basic rights. If such laws were passed with enforcement to begin in 2014 or 2016 then it would be fine but as it stands now it does equate to a power grab as it disenfranchises a major support block for the competing party.

Well said; you mostly echo my own thoughts on this issue.

That said, I am intensely disgusted with the state of political discourse in my country at this time. I've already made up my mind as to how I'm going to vote, and am actively blocking out any and all election news as it now has no bearing on my decision and will only serve to drive my blood pressure up.

Full disclosure: I'm voting for Romney solely because I disagree with Mr. Obama's policies. I hold no illusions that Romney is a "good" candidate, but I feel neither is his opponent. South Park (or rather the luminary minds behind it) once eloquently summarized the issue as: "a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."  I'm quite the social liberal (as in, I follow "live and let live") and an economic conservative (as in, "don't spend money we don't have"), so both candidates will leave me wanting something more.

I really wish this wasn't the case, but I've come to realize that it's not necessarily the politicians themselves that suck (though the American system is uniquely suited for sociopaths to advance), but rather the citizenry that the politicians emerged from.... perhaps America isn't exactly number one at the moment?

Thus ends IronBeer's 2012 political discourse. I'm willing to elaborate upon/ clarify some points I've raised earlier, but I will do so on my own timetable.

[MP-Ryan]

For the purposes of the federal government, your Social Security number serves as a de facto national ID, so why should there be another layer placed on top of that?

Social security numbers aren't proof of citizenship.  Anyone who works can get one.

The timing is wrong, the reasons given right now are shady, but ultimately requiring photo ID to vote is a common practice in many democracies and there is nothing inherently wrong with that practice.

[Scotty]

I don't think anyone is really dead-set in opposition to the idea of voter ID requirements.

[Mongoose]

For the purposes of the federal government, your Social Security number serves as a de facto national ID, so why should there be another layer placed on top of that?

Social security numbers aren't proof of citizenship.  Anyone who works can get one.

I didn't say it was proof of citizenship, merely an identification for governmental purposes.  As I said, all one really needs as proof of citizenship is a valid birth certificate.  I've yet to see a compelling argument for why a national ID would be required on top of a state-issued driver's license or non-driver's ID.

[karajorma]

Full disclosure: I'm voting for Romney solely because I disagree with Mr. Obama's policies. I hold no illusions that Romney is a "good" candidate, but I feel neither is his opponent. South Park (or rather the luminary minds behind it) once eloquently summarized the issue as: "a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."  I'm quite the social liberal (as in, I follow "live and let live") and an economic conservative (as in, "don't spend money we don't have"), so both candidates will leave me wanting something more.

How's about actually voting for someone good then?

[TwentyPercentCooler]

I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson. I know it's essentially a wasted vote. But I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Romnobama.

[IronBeer]

How's about actually voting for someone good then?

Here's the way I see it: American presidential (and general, I guess) voting is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Axiom. I choose the lesser evil that, in my determinations, will do the most good (or least harm) for the country in the short run. In the long run, I work to promote "better citizenry" by attempting rational discussions and education of my fellows. Wasting a vote does no good, period. I think the self-reinforcing two-party system is bull****, and that the political system at large is far more corrupt than most people are comfortable to contemplate (we are not most people, ofc), but as a "mere citizen" I have to work within the dictated constraints. To promote better politicians, we need to build a better country. Breaking down ignorance, encouraging independent thought, fostering deep and intelligent discourse, these are all ways that I feel like I have an impact. Though I'll admit that it can be really friggin' difficult at times (ok, most of the time). But on any occasion when I can have a smart, deep conversation about religion or a hot-button issue with somebody who has opposite views without biting their head off, I feel a little hope for mankind. As far as human nature is concerned, I'm a "glass half-empty" person, but I hold out hope that the glass can be filled some more in the future. Perhaps my view is extra-rosy due to my current stay at a university, and a few years in the "real world" will swiftly turn me into a bitter old 20-something curmudgeon.

tl;dr- I vote for the lesser of two evils, fight derp and doesn't afraid of anything.

[karajorma]

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils are that,

1) Everyone does it because everyone does it.
2) You're still voting for evil.

[Klaustrophobia]

As Mongoose said it really comes down to the timing. While I'm not apposed to being required to present a photo ID in order to vote it is irresponsible to force through such regulation less than 6 months before a major election. If it is to become the norm than citizens need proper time and awareness to comply with laws that effect their basic rights. If such laws were passed with enforcement to begin in 2014 or 2016 then it would be fine but as it stands now it does equate to a power grab as it disenfranchises a major support block for the competing party.

i seriously doubt anyone has any illusions of this passing and being enforced for the upcoming elections.  sure, they'd LIKE to, but it's not going to happen.  and you're all right, it IS a timing thing.  the thing is though, this idea has been around a LOT longer than the past few months.  personally, i find the timing of the big stink being raised about it right before the election to be the suspect part.  smells like another ****-slinging fest at those stupid, radical, racist republicans to me.   

[Alex Heartnet]

I'm not going to vote at all.  Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.

I would vote for Ron Paul, but given the stuff I've seen him have to put up with this election year I won't be surprised if he doesn't even make it onto the ballet.

[Mongoose]

i seriously doubt anyone has any illusions of this passing and being enforced for the upcoming elections.  sure, they'd LIKE to, but it's not going to happen.  and you're all right, it IS a timing thing.  the thing is though, this idea has been around a LOT longer than the past few months.  personally, i find the timing of the big stink being raised about it right before the election to be the suspect part.  smells like another ****-slinging fest at those stupid, radical, racist republicans to me.   

Um...at least in Pennsylvania, it already passed, and it's going to be enforced.  It survived a court challenge too.  The Jon Stewart clip kind of says as much.

[karajorma]

I'm not going to vote at all.  Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.

And that's exactly what they want you to do.

[Thaeris]

Oh-ho! I've been following up on some of this matter - the RNC has been nearly completely bought by fascists. To join the 2012 Nazi party, please endorse any candidate supported by the Koch brothers. Rachel Maddow has done some wonderfully insightful sessions on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDmF0phB1w&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA

...Lo and behold, every state with a Tea Party candidate, elected on the premice that they would uphold more "traditional" values, or what have you, was pretty much bought out, and then once elected, promptly introduced legislature which made it harder for the middle- and lower-classes to live and then, as you're seeing now, harder to vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTKY5ZCPfMY&feature=BFa&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA

And, whether you like Cenk or not, the final proof of evil you possibly did not concieve of prior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTUjYyae2zw&feature=BFa&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA

This video has been posted on some of these topics before, but it is especially relevant here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=35OXo9SSj5I

The RNC is now so brazenly callous that they will barely manage to cover up mass voter fraud, despite how obvious and clear it is. And you'll seldom hear about it, due to the money involved. Even if procecuted, as Romney is being at present, I doubt it will matter, because the capital here is so overpowering. They bought off a political movement about restoring Constitutional values and good sense in government, and by they I of course mean the Koch brothers and et al. Otherwise known as the Nazi party.

By sapping the unions, they damage a substantial source of income for the Democratic party. This in turn means the Democratic party might just need to resort to corporate capital to compensate. It thus appears that the DNC will also go to Hell in a handbasket, or rather, a purse. Granted, I may not support the wide-scale Federalism supported by the Democrats, but at least it was genuine, maybe. Now it's just a matter of time.

But ultimately, you'll be prompted (and the key word is indeed "prompted") to choose between two candidates, who are both basically different models of the same meat puppet that cannot uphold the oath to defend your Constitutional rights by repealing the Patriot Act and all the vile **** that goes with it. 2012 and beyond is looking...

...Unfathomably horrible.

[IronBeer]

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils are that,

1) Everyone does it because everyone does it.
2) You're still voting for evil.

I'm not going to vote at all.  Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.

And that's exactly what they want you to do.

Well, hmpf. ಠ_ಠ  What would you suggest, then? Just for the sake of discussion.

[Ghostavo]

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils are that,

1) Everyone does it because everyone does it.
2) You're still voting for evil.

I'm not going to vote at all.  Tired of being presented with a choice between two corrupt politicians.

And that's exactly what they want you to do.

Well, hmpf. ಠ_ಠ  What would you suggest, then? Just for the sake of discussion.

I think the answer is obvious





that or endorce a(nother) third candidate.

[Thaeris]

Ron Paul is, unless something very unexpected happens, officially out of the running. Despite my great disappointment in this matter, Gary Johnson is still there, and he gets my vote.

I'd urge you to vote Libertarian before you vote Green - environmentalists are not always scientists. Libertarians will at least uphold Constitutional law.

[NGTM-1R]

Libertarians have the unfortunate tendency to appeal to the idea of the Constitution, rather than its actual wording, rather like Tea Party types do with it.

[karajorma]

Well, hmpf. ಠ_ಠ  What would you suggest, then? Just for the sake of discussion.

Go in an spoil your ballot. Write "None of these ****ers, I want someone good". Get all your friends who won't vote to do it too. Basically, get people to see that there are a large number of people dissatisfied with the current crop of politicians who are still willing to vote. It's the last point that is important. No one cares that there are a large number who won't get off their arse.

The issue is that there are a large number of people like yourself who don't vote cause they can't stand either party. But in terms of their political power, their refusal to vote means that they have none at all. No politician cares about someone who won't vote. There's no need to chase after them.

Spoiling the ballot give you that power back. It makes the politicians realise you are a floating vote. That makes you important. If every person who says "I'm not going to vote in protest" instead said "I'm going to spoil my ballot in protest", the entire election would be very different.