Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Sorry, I was not aware...what positions are those, anyway?

It isn't always bannable, but advocating against equal treatment of gays is not likely to be well treated here. Racism is also strongly correlated with conservatism, and similarly advocating against equal treatment of blacks or hispanics can be a bannable offense.

There are other examples, but these are a few of them. Keep in mind that none of these are absolutely bannable under all conditions, but things like racism and homophobia are likely to be bannable and have much stronger correlations to social conservatism than liberalism. Please note, just for emphasis one more time, that I am not suggesting that all conservatives (or, for that matter, all social conservatives) are racists and homophobes; just that a significantly larger portion of them are relative to social liberals. This "thins the herd" of conservatives posting in political threads by default.

Things like abortion rights or gun laws or voter ID debates are all completely acceptable and won't result in a ban if you happen to side with conservative conclusions. As always, support your positions with reason and evidence whenever possible.

 

[Tex117]

I'm a moderately strong fiscal conservative. Though I'm Keynesian (idealist, spend on the right things Keynesian). I'm also a strong social liberal, so I'm one of those nutty center left libertarians that GAF denies existence of.

I can never vote for Republicans because they're such flamboyant fiscal liberals, and they spend on the exact opposite of things that I think are good for economic growth. I mean just look at Romney's plan for military spending, tax cuts, and covering it with mysterious unspecified deductibles that are totally not any of the ones we're aware of (ie increase spending, grow debt by 50% while not in a recession. Just like Bush 2 and Reagan did).

So you are voting for Obama?

 

[LosDaddie]

Go on. Tell me how you really feel.

I'm not whining. I'm not complaining. I don't care. I'm just explaining. This is absolutely no skin off my nose. Evilore's house, Evilore's rules. I learned to accept that a long time ago. I'm just throwing in my two cents by expressing the futility of it all.

I know exactly which one's Opiate was referring to.

Don't be so defensive.

Just like you've done here, I'm explaining why PoliGAF doesn't have to be the way it currently is. It's up to you and your fellow conservatives whether you want to change it, because you have the power to do so. Again, this is why ToxicAdam is/was well respected on GAF.

 

[s7evn]

So you are voting for Obama?

I think it would make him a libertarian.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd feel almost awkward if I did have lots of support in UK Gaf. I don't mind being the bad cop.

 

[TheFightingFish]

Yes, there are several considerations which make it difficult to be a US Conservative on GAF:

1) This is an international forum. A person who is a conservative by US standards is in the right wing of an already right wing country, and this makes their views relatively extreme on the first world international scale. If this were a US only forum we might see a 50/50 split; because it's an international one -- where even "conservative" Frenchman will be liberal by US standards, for example -- the split is probably closer to 66/33 or even 75/25 when speaking from a US frame of reference.

The argument does always seem a bit odd to me when some of the European members talk about how far right Obama would be in their country. I mean, is there really much sense at all comparing left / right boundaries outside of a single country? The new Chinese left is certainly very left (by US standards) on nationalization of industry, but crazy right in terms of individual freedoms, which is usually considered part of the left in America. And while most of Western Europe is no doubt to the left of the US in general they also seem to swing farther to the right was well with some of the more extreme right-wing populism groups. Plus calling the US as generally right is probably true, but only if your comment on first world is being rather strict. There are, for instance, a massive amount of Muslim countries, some of who I would consider the first world (UAE and Qatar for instance). I think the GAF slant has more to do with a rather large Euro contingent as well as the general internet -> liberal age thing that you mention.

I will say that as someone who is pro-immigration, pro-gay marriage, pro-universal health care, anti-death penalty, pro progressive taxation in general, and pretty much on the democrat side for most stuff

Spoiler

pro-life though, which leads to a host of annoyances politically

that the tone is pretty crazy for any conservative to actually participate in discussions here. I'm usually only mostly in Gaming side, but poking around in one of the random Romney threads yesterday and honestly by 3 or 4 pages in a fair handful of liberal posters had expressed the opinion that there was no other reason to vote for Romney other than being a racist, sexist or exploitative asshole. Then there are liberals in this thread saying "Yeah, come discuss, let's talk about it. Why won't you defend your positions?" Man I would not stick my neck out, I'll tell you that. Not much point in debating if many of the folks you are debating with are coming from the position that 50% of the country is total scum. I feel that just not a fair starting point for any type of reasonable discussion to have to start each argument by trying to prove that you are not some type of racist / bigot / sexist for your political choice. Speaking for myself I feel that outside from some really racist crazies on the right (some real nutters on the left too) most voters are making choices that they actually do believe are the right and fair choices for them and for the country. They might be wrong or misinformed, but I never think that sweeping generalizations and name calling is the way to combat / debate that.

Just my two cents, and I will say that it's probably the coming election contributing to some of the current GAF heat. As I said I'm not an OT regular, but I don't imagine that it's like this all the time.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Don't be so defensive.

Just like you've done here, I'm explaining why PoliGAF doesn't have to be the way it currently is. It's up to you and your fellow conservatives whether you want to change it, because you have the power to do so. Again, this is why ToxicAdam is/was well respected on GAF.

I think most conservatives on GAF recognize the chasm between politics (US) as they are perceived on GAF and those of reality. By debating, you're not only going into a debate bound by artificial restrictions that wouldn't exist in another venue, you're debating against a eschewed version of politics that bears little resemblance to life on the outside.

As I mentioned earlier, my feelings on GAF political debates can best be summed up by the computer in Wargames:

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

 

[teruterubozu]

Don't be so defensive.

Just like you've done here, I'm explaining why PoliGAF doesn't have to be the way it currently is. It's up to you and your fellow conservatives whether you want to change it, because you have the power to do so. Again, this is why ToxicAdam is/was well respected on GAF.

TA is (was) not a full-blown conservative by any measure though. I would say he was extreme on climate change, but rather moderate on everything else - i.e. acceptable by GAF terms.

 

[sp3000]

Don't be so defensive.

Just like you've done here, I'm explaining why PoliGAF doesn't have to be the way it currently is. It's up to you and your fellow conservatives whether you want to change it, because you have the power to do so. Again, this is why ToxicAdam is/was well respected on GAF.

Why change it, it seems the majority of posters are content with the circlejerk that it is. Better to leave them be.

 

[Red Blaster]

Well, considering there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the US, voter IDs to show you are a citizen should be used to make sure that the person voting is a citizen. And like I mentioned, the right to vote is a basic right, but it is also restricted. Nothing wrong with restricting voting to American citizens and having them prove it.

Voter fraud or "stopping illegals!" is a smokescreen to suppress voting, it's literally not an actual problem worth considering.

But is voter fraud really a problem? The Justice Department, under President George W. Bush, conducted a five-year effort to find and prosecute improper voting—and turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to affect federal elections. A separate report by the Brennan Center found that the type of voter fraud that these voter ID laws would address is “more rare than death by lightning,” while The Washington Post called the laws a “response to no known problem.” The Minnesota ACLU went so far as to offer a $1,000 reward for any example of voter impersonation in the state in the last decade. At press time, there were no takers.

http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/04/are-voter-id-laws-racist

The Brennan Center For Justice at NYU Law School did a large study on voter ID laws and why they're terrible

Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs, because the underlying documentation like birth certificates (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult or expensive to come by. At the same time, voter ID policies are far more costly to implement than many assume.

They have a 64 page document on new voting laws enacted in 2012 that talks about shit like:

-not letting young people use university issued student IDs; new law in Texas that lets you use a fucking concealed handgun permit as proof of identity but not a student ID issued from a state university
-suppression of community-driven voter registration drives in Florida; blacks and hispanics rely heavily on these compared to white voters
-significant restrictions placed on early voting such as barring voting on the Sunday before election day in Florida and Sunday voting period Ohio which just so happens to be when many blacks vote
-secretary of state in Maine forwarded a list of 200 students to be investigated for voter fraud because they were registered to vote in-state but pay out-of-state tuition.
-cases in which voter IDs laws have been vetoed by governors or ruled by judges as unconstitutional are revised to make them ballot measures that place them in state constitutions
-suppression of same-day registration for voting under the false assumption that it somehow increases voter fraud

Moreover you have conservatives attempting to use scare tactics that pry on groups that may not be aware of their voting rights, this was a billboard that appeared in predominantly minority neighborhoods in Cleveland

:


So basically voter ID laws are all a bunch of fucking bullshit clearly engineered to suppress demographics that lean to the left.

 

[RDreamer]

Moreover you have conservatives attempting to use scare tactics that pry on groups that may not be aware of their voting rights, this was a billboard that appeared in predominantly minority neighborhoods in Cleveland

:

What's odd is this same billboard is just down the street from me, and I live in one of the most white, most republican districts in Wisconsin.

 

[Tex117]

I think it would make him a libertarian.

I know exactly what it means. If there was a libertarian running, then I would know how he would cast his vote.

But there is only Romney and Obama, a democrat and a republican.

I ask because I too am a Libertarian but I lean right.

 

[Kevtones]

I'm a moderate that's favorable to elements of socialism but the current climate/foreseeable future is making me lean conservative.

I'm also very liberal on social issues.


lol

 

[dionysus]

Typical misrepresentation.

On evidence that there is no voter fraud: This is bullshit. Because we have no way to verify who voted because ID laws are so ridiculous lax, of course you can't show fraud.
You know what, if we made it illegal to search cars for drugs there would be no evidence that anyone transported drugs in cars. But we can show thousands of cases of fraudulent registrations. Empty lots with 100s of names registered to that location is just one common one. Google it,

On allowing concealed carry permits as ID: The purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency in the county you are voting at. This is an excellent ID. Here are the ID requirements for a CC permit.
•Social security number,
•Valid driver license or identification card,
•Current demographic, address, contact, and employment information,
•Residential and employment information for the last five years (new users only),
•Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history (new users only),
•Valid email address, and
•Valid credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or American Express)
ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE

On not allowing student IDs: Again, the purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency. A student ID does neither. The only thing a student ID shows is that you attend the school. I have a Sam's Club Card, should that be a valid ID?

On voting laws affecting minorities and old people the most: What racial paternalism. Black people and old people are unable to get free government issued IDs? Poor white poeple that vote Republican have no problem though! States with Voter ID requirements always make IDs available for free to counter the poll tax allegation. I suppose all those government programs like food stamps, social security, entrance to federal buildings, etc are also racist against minorities. Same with boarding an airplane, getting a loan, etc. Every citizen is guaranteed by the Constitution to be able to petition the government, yet most government buildings require ID to enter the building. For some reason though, voting is different.

Secretary of state of Maine...: I see no problem with this. Either they are defrauding the public university or defrauding the voters of Maine.

Same day registration: How does one register to vote without valid ID? What you want is to just let anyone walk up and cast a provisional ballot with no proof of anything?

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

On evidence that there is no voter fraud: This is bullshit. Because we have no way to verify who voted because ID laws are so ridiculous lax, of course you can't show fraud.
You know what, if we made it illegal to search cars for drugs there would be no evidence that anyone transported drugs in cars. But we can show thousands of cases of fraudulent registrations. Empty lots with 100s of names registered to that location is just one common one. Google it,

On allowing concealed carry permits as ID: The purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency in the county you are voting at. This is an excellent ID. Here are the ID requirements for a CC permit.
•Social security number,
•Valid driver license or identification card,
•Current demographic, address, contact, and employment information,
•Residential and employment information for the last five years (new users only),
•Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history (new users only),
•Valid email address, and
•Valid credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or American Express)
ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE

On not allowing student IDs: Again, the purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency. A student ID does neither. The only thing a student ID shows is that you attend the school. I have a Sam's Club Card, should that be a valid ID?

On voting laws affecting minorities and old people the most: What racial paternalism. Black people and old people are unable to get free government issued IDs? Poor white poeple that vote Republican have no problem though! States with Voter ID requirements always make IDs available for free to counter the poll tax allegation. I suppose all those government programs like food stamps, social security, entrance to federal buildings, etc are also racist against minorities. Same with boarding an airplane, getting a loan, etc. Every citizen is guaranteed by the Constitution to be able to petition the government, yet most government buildings require ID to enter the building. For some reason though, voting is different.

Secretary of state of Maine...: I see no problem with this. Either they are defrauding the public university or defrauding the voters of Maine.

Same day registration: How does one register to vote without valid ID? What you want is to just let anyone walk up and cast a provisional ballot with no proof of anything?

In order to go to a school you must prove you live in state with bills in your name, address proofs, social security number, etc

You dont just show up and say
'I want to go to school here'
'that will be $5300, mr.....'
'....Dough. Shawn Dough.' said the evil unregistered illegal in a thick accent

 

[pigeon]

But we can show thousands of cases of fraudulent registrations. Empty lots with 100s of names registered to that location is just one common one. Google it.

But this proves nothing except that voter registration agencies pay their people by the form and so motivate them to fill out fake voter registrations. We already know that, just by Googling "GOP voter registration." (And my point is that it isn't a real problem unless you've shown that it's one.)

On voting laws affecting minorities and old people the most: What racial paternalism. Black people and old people are unable to get free government issued IDs? Poor white poeple that vote Republican have no problem though! States with Voter ID requirements always make IDs available for free to counter the poll tax allegation.

Again, simply requiring you to prove your address is a de facto poll tax. Many Americans have no permanent address. Others have a semipermanent address but no documents addressed to them at that address because they have no credit and live dollar to dollar. How do you propose these people get their IDs when they are required to show proof of address to do so?

 

[dionysus]

In order to go to a school you must prove you live in state with bills in your name, address proofs, social security number, etc

You dont just show up and say
'I want to go to school here'
'that will be $5300, mr.....'
'....Dough. Shawn Dough.' said the evil unregistered illegal in a thick accent

No this varies by school. For example, California has laws on the books allowing people to attend university without proving citizenship. It even gives them in state tuition. Some schools have more illegal aliens than citizens as students, all perfectly legitimate for that state and schools rules. But that doesn't make them a citizen or give them the right to vote.

 

[soul creator]

Isn't it possible that one's position is simply wrong? The "dogpiling" doesn't inherently imply any sort of negative personal feelings towards conservatives. Maybe a lot of conservative views are just more often incorrect?

Not every position is on completely equal, could go either way, 50/50 standing with the opposite view. The mere fact that someone may personally feel strongly about their position has zero bearing on whether or not that position is actually correct (or even in the realm of being correct).

Sure, you could always find someone on either side of a discussion who goes too far (insulting the person rather than the idea), but at some point, people have to be open to the idea that they are just wrong based on all available evidence. And sometimes, there's no easy way to point that out. Someone's views, no matter how strongly held they are, could just in fact be a bunch of BS. Sorry?

Like the voter ID stuff...numerous evidence shows that as actually implemented, they are pretty much a tool of disenfranchisement, and yes, have racist outcomes. Now sure, Mr. Individual Conservative may be the nicest and most wonderful person in the world, with all the best intentions, but if you happen to support these policies (the real world ones that are actually being proposed, and have publicly documented effects, not the idealized version in one's head), you support something that negatively affects minorities and the poor, and is a "racist" policy. If someone still wants to go on about the great scourge of voter fraud after all this evidence is presented, then well...

Spoiler

interestingly enough, this whole thread could just as easily apply to lots of religious discussions as well

 

[dionysus]

But this proves nothing except that voter registration agencies pay their people by the form and so motivate them to fill out fake voter registrations. We already know that, just by Googling "GOP voter registration." (And my point is that it isn't a real problem unless you've shown that it's one.)



Again, simply requiring you to prove your address is a de facto poll tax. Many Americans have no permanent address. Others have a semipermanent address but no documents addressed to them at that address because they have no credit and live dollar to dollar. How do you propose these people get their IDs when they are required to show proof of address to do so?

Ok, so you admit rampant registration fraud, but then someone can vote all those fraudulent registrations as long as they know the names on the list..... Nor would this be caught as voter fraud since their name is on the voter roll so we MUST NOT REQUIRE ID! I feel like you proved my point.

Many americans have no friends, have no family, can't get a PO box, can't walk to a homeless shelter, can't do anything to help themselves. They are sooo helpless. And only the Progressives want to help these people that have no hope of ever helping themselves.

PS. Homeless shelters are valid addresses for government purposes. Job placement charities also do similar things so the person can put a mailing address down on an application.

 

[Htown]

Pushing for tougher Voter ID laws isn't even a conservative position.

It's a Republican one.

There's a difference.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Again, simply requiring you to prove your address is a de facto poll tax. Many Americans have no permanent address. Others have a semipermanent address but no documents addressed to them at that address because they have no credit and live dollar to dollar. How do you propose these people get their IDs when they are required to show proof of address to do so?

Alright, you've convinced me there's no way to get it right, and that the proposed ideas (even the ones I have) won't do the job adequately or properly. So there's no way. Well dicks on a stick, I'm out of ideas.

Or make it mandatory.

 

[Kinitari]

On evidence that there is no voter fraud: This is bullshit. Because we have no way to verify who voted because ID laws are so ridiculous lax, of course you can't show fraud.
You know what, if we made it illegal to search cars for drugs there would be no evidence that anyone transported drugs in cars. But we can show thousands of cases of fraudulent registrations. Empty lots with 100s of names registered to that location is just one common one. Google it,

On allowing concealed carry permits as ID: The purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency in the county you are voting at. This is an excellent ID. Here are the ID requirements for a CC permit.
•Social security number,
•Valid driver license or identification card,
•Current demographic, address, contact, and employment information,
•Residential and employment information for the last five years (new users only),
•Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history (new users only),
•Valid email address, and
•Valid credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or American Express)
ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE

On not allowing student IDs: Again, the purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency. A student ID does neither. The only thing a student ID shows is that you attend the school. I have a Sam's Club Card, should that be a valid ID?

On voting laws affecting minorities and old people the most: What racial paternalism. Black people and old people are unable to get free government issued IDs? Poor white poeple that vote Republican have no problem though! States with Voter ID requirements always make IDs available for free to counter the poll tax allegation. I suppose all those government programs like food stamps, social security, entrance to federal buildings, etc are also racist against minorities. Same with boarding an airplane, getting a loan, etc. Every citizen is guaranteed by the Constitution to be able to petition the government, yet most government buildings require ID to enter the building. For some reason though, voting is different.

Secretary of state of Maine...: I see no problem with this. Either they are defrauding the public university or defrauding the voters of Maine.

Same day registration: How does one register to vote without valid ID? What you want is to just let anyone walk up and cast a provisional ballot with no proof of anything?

Some of your points here are interesting, and you raise a decent point about not being able to catch fraud the slips through the cracks - but the general language is, it's probably not much, and it's definitely not enough to steal an election.

Regardless - the reason most of GAF has issues with voter fraud legislation is because how it often times manifests itself. You talk about it not disenfranchising minorities, well first of all it's not just minorities (although some people frame it as such) it's 'the poor and minorities', as they are the least likely to have government issued ID, and also the least likely to vote republican -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/court-blocks-tough-voter-id-law-in-texas.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_Laws_in_the_United_States#Criticisms

I mean, look at this choice quote:

On June 23, 2012, Pennsylvania's Speaker of the House, Republican Mike Turzai stated that Pennsylvania's recent voter identification law would "allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania"[25] in the 2012 U.S. Presidential election.[26][27]

Which really gives some insight on the intent of some of the people who push for this legislation. That being said, even if you were to argue that an equal amount of democrats and republicans are being disenfranchised by these laws, it is a net negative because there is absolutely no compelling evidence that shows that fraud is significant enough to warrant such measures.

You'd actually find that on GAF - many would be okay with voter ID laws being presented if:

- IDs were provided for free to all citizens in a very accessible and quick manner
- That said laws would be implemented years after mandatory free ID was distributed among all citizens, to give the general populace time to 'prepare'.

Often times these things are pushed through months before an election, where DMVs become overcrowded and even more frustrating to visit. Heck I remember reading about one politician who pushed through voter ID laws, who shortly afterward decided to close down a dozen DMVs in particularly 'democratic' areas.

So it's not as though people who are wary or oppose these legislations do so because... they hate freedom or some such, many (I'd wager most) do so because they sincerely feel as though these laws are an impediment to the election process, and are done solely to provide one party some semblance of an advantage.

 

[Earthstrike]

There you go

I like how your edit still implies that conservatives are being hypocritical.

 

[akira28]

don't be so sure...

Is that an 80 lbs dumbbell? Or just a labelled 40 weight? I wanna know if i should be impressed.

Also he looks like a child molester. Just sayin. It's the eyes. Like they're saying "Sorry I touched your kids, lol!"

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Also he looks like a child molester. Just sayin. It's the eyes. Like they're saying "Sorry I touched your kids, lol!"

Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Is that an 80 lbs dumbbell? Or just a labelled 40 weight? I wanna know if i should be impressed.

Also he looks like a child molester. Just sayin. It's the eyes. Like they're saying "Sorry I touched your kids, lol!"

This post may serve you better in the general PoliGAF thread, we're not really focusing on how someone looks, we're talking about policies and answers.

 

[pigeon]

Ok, so you admit rampant registration fraud, but then someone can vote all those fraudulent registrations as long as they know the names on the list..... Nor would this be caught as voter fraud since their name is on the voter roll so we MUST NOT REQUIRE ID! I feel like you proved my point.

Follow me here -- the reason we have those statistics is that those registrations were thrown out by the county for being obviously fraudulent. None of them can be voted on.

Many americans have no friends, have no family, can't get a PO box, can't walk to a homeless shelter, can't do anything to help themselves. They are sooo helpless. And only the Progressives want to help these people that have no hope of ever helping themselves.

PS. Homeless shelters are valid addresses for government purposes. Job placement charities also do similar things so the person can put a mailing address down on an application.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. Yes, there are some people who don't have those things. You think the average homeless person is going to pay for a PO box? Nor is having friends or family enough -- that was my point about semipermanent addresses.

So are you just saying screw those people, you don't care? What is your actual argument here?

Alright, you've convinced me there's no way to get it right, and that the proposed ideas (even the ones I have) won't do the job adequately or properly. So there's no way. Well dicks on a stick, I'm out of ideas.

Or make it mandatory.

I appreciate your forthrightness! I'm not sure whether you mean mandatory voting or mandatory public ID. I think there are potentially good arguments for either, really, but that the implementation, as always, is the tough part.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I appreciate your forthrightness! I'm not sure whether you mean mandatory voting or mandatory public ID. I think there are potentially good arguments for either, really, but that the implementation, as always, is the tough part.

Mandatory voting - but the implementation needed for voter ID (and a LOT of other issues) are just too staggeringly complex to get to work RIGHT and neutral - without a slant on either direction - that I'll admit, I'd rather just throw up my hands and give up. But now I know the voter ID issue is something I can file away into the "give up" bin in my head and focus on other things that may work.

 

[The Lamp]

I'm kind of conservative but I refrain from political threads here because they're usually filled with toxic circle jerking. I don't particularly like either Romney or Obama, but just yesterday I responded to a poster who was telling me that one can't prefer someone over Obama without being ignorant, which I find to be a repulsive political attitude. Before you say that's just one person, much of GAFs political discussions that I find here are needlessly belligerent and just a huge turn off for me. I'd prefer to talk in person where lack of internet anonymity hopefully spurs politeness.

 

[Red Blaster]

On evidence that there is no voter fraud: This is bullshit. Because we have no way to verify who voted because ID laws are so ridiculous lax, of course you can't show fraud.
You know what, if we made it illegal to search cars for drugs there would be no evidence that anyone transported drugs in cars. But we can show thousands of cases of fraudulent registrations. Empty lots with 100s of names registered to that location is just one common one. Google it,

Why the fuck should I google it? You're the one making the illogical point that voter fraud is real even if it can't be proved.

From the same Brennan Center report:

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%.

From the Washington Post:

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.

From the New York Times:

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

I didn't see any references in your post to exhaustive studies proving that voter fraud is a problem. Oh that's right, because there are none. Derp.

On not allowing student IDs: Again, the purpose of voter ID laws is to prove citizenship and residency. A student ID does neither. The only thing a student ID shows is that you attend the school. I have a Sam's Club Card, should that be a valid ID?

Does a Sam's Club Card require you to have a proper immunization record and standardized test scores and transcripts? There are a significant number of identification hurdles that need to be met before acquiring a student ID. Moreover, you're conflating voter fraud with voter registration fraud; these voter ID laws that are attempting to bar student IDs for already registered voters. In Pennsylvania the new voter ID laws don't permit student IDs to be used but still allow things like expired driver's licenses as permissible in spite of driver's licenses being no less easy to forge.

On voting laws affecting minorities and old people the most: What racial paternalism. Black people and old people are unable to get free government issued IDs? Poor white poeple that vote Republican have no problem though! States with Voter ID requirements always make IDs available for free to counter the poll tax allegation. I suppose all those government programs like food stamps, social security, entrance to federal buildings, etc are also racist against minorities. Same with boarding an airplane, getting a loan, etc. Every citizen is guaranteed by the Constitution to be able to petition the government, yet most government buildings require ID to enter the building. For some reason though, voting is different.

What a coincidence you mentioned the constitution; voter ID laws have often been ruled as unconstitutional in federal courts. Also you don't seem cognizant to the reality of minorities in the country.

Brennen Center report again:

Although ID requirements may seem reasonable to many middle-class Americans, hard evidence shows that many citizens face extreme difficulty in obtaining certain forms of identification and that ID requirements are often discriminatorily implemented.

This Slate article cites a bunch of studies, stating that since minorities are generally poorer and live in urban areas, there is less of a need for a driver's license (the most common type of ID). Other forms of ID are more difficult to obtain for this group because they require individuals to go out of their way to get them and are typically rather expensive. Also those free IDs you speak of often require birth certificates which many of these people don't have handy.

Secretary of state of Maine...: I see no problem with this. Either they are defrauding the public university or defrauding the voters of Maine.

Yeah, judge first and ask questions later. Voting requirements are different from tuition requirements, students in Maine can be legally registered to vote in-state but may not meet the guidelines to qualify for in-state tuition.

Same day registration: How does one register to vote without valid ID? What you want is to just let anyone walk up and cast a provisional ballot with no proof of anything?

Nope, the oppression of same-day registration was just another example of Republicans offering solutions to things that aren't problems.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Why the fuck should I google it?

Cmon man, we don't need that kind of tone in here.

 

[DarkFlow]

You'll likely find a lot of financial conservatives, but not a lot of social ones.

I would think most people fall into this. Nothing wrong with saying the government should try to do more with less. When they start telling me how I should live my life is when we have problems.

 

[NH Apache]

Isn't it possible that one's position is simply wrong? The "dogpiling" doesn't inherently imply any sort of negative personal feelings towards conservatives. Maybe a lot of conservative views are just more often incorrect?

Not every position is on completely equal, could go either way, 50/50 standing with the opposite view. The mere fact that someone may personally feel strongly about their position has zero bearing on whether or not that position is actually correct (or even in the realm of being correct).

Sure, you could always find someone on either side of a discussion who goes too far (insulting the person rather than the idea), but at some point, people have to be open to the idea that they are just wrong based on all available evidence. And sometimes, there's no easy way to point that out. Someone's views, no matter how strongly held they are, could just in fact be a bunch of BS. Sorry?

Spoiler

interestingly enough, this whole thread could just as easily apply to lots of religious discussions as well

When facts are being discussed, there is a wrong and a right side. Beliefs on the other hand, aren't necessarily right or wrong. People typically have these beliefs for some reason, whether it be religion, background, etc. There isn't a factually correct side to many of these issues. Sure, there may be popular sides of the coin, but factually wrong doesn't apply to these arguments.

I feel like this is one of the "trending arguments" I've seen in this thread by people who don't claim to be conservative. Supply all the information you want to argue a point, and good on you for doing so, but that doesn't mean that the individual has to see the liberal light, so to speak. Beliefs are individualized and really, you (not you personally, soulcreator, just an example) don't have the right to force your beliefs on another or say they are wrong.

As someone who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, I don't disagree with many of the things that are said in the PoliGAF topic. But, it irks me to no end when I see "Republicans/Conservatives are the scum of the earth/kill children/are ignorant" type of posts because generalizations are dumb and ignorant in their own right.

I've been on this board since 07 and been reading it for long before that. I really do enjoy this board for news and the commentary on the news. But I stay far away from PoliGAF because it isn't fun getting demeaned when you put down a rational argument. That being said, Opiate listed many legitimate reasons why the ratio is one sided and I've learned to understand that and suffer through the random bad political jokes that make their way into the non-political threads. I still love these forums and refuse to risk my membership on a political topic.

 

[The Lamp]

When facts are being discussed, there is a wrong and a right side. Beliefs on the other hand, aren't necessarily right or wrong. People typically have these beliefs for some reason, whether it be religion, background, etc. There isn't a factually correct side to many of these issues. Sure, there may be popular sides of the coin, but factually wrong doesn't apply to these arguments.

I feel like this is one of the "trending arguments" I've seen in this thread by people who don't claim to be conservative. Supply all the information you want to argue a point, and good on you for doing so, but that doesn't mean that the individual has to see the liberal light, so to speak. Beliefs are individualized and really, you (not you personally, soulcreator, just an example) don't have the right to force your beliefs on another or say they are wrong.

As someone who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, I don't disagree with many of the things that are said in the PoliGAF topic. But, it irks me to no end when I see "Republicans/Conservatives are the scum of the earth/kill children/are ignorant" type of posts because generalizations are dumb and ignorant in their own right.

I've been on this board since 07 and been reading it for long before that. I really do enjoy this board for news and the commentary on the news. But I stay far away from PoliGAF because it isn't fun getting demeaned when you put down a rational argument. That being said, Opiate listed many legitimate reasons why the ratio is one sided and I've learned to understand that and suffer through the random bad political jokes that make their way into the non-political threads. I still love these forums and refuse to risk my membership on a political topic.

Basically how I view things as well.

 

[Windu]

i usually lean more to the rebulican side of things with fiscal issues. One reason i stay out of gaf political threads..

 

[RDreamer]

Supply all the information you want to argue a point, and good on you for doing so, but that doesn't mean that the individual has to see the liberal light, so to speak. Beliefs are individualized and really, you (not you personally, soulcreator, just an example) don't have the right to force your beliefs on another or say they are wrong.

Oh hell yes we do. Look, we're not talking about individualized religious beliefs here. We're talking about beliefs with regard to societal policy that we all will have to live under. If you have a belief about policy you should make for damned sure it's backed up by some information and facts. You should have a credible belief when it comes to these things. And if you have absolutely nothing but "religion" or "background" informing that belief, then you're damned straight I'm going to say it's wrong if I have credible studies debunking the possible outcomes or ramifications of that belief as it is put into policy.

Again, this isn't individualized stuff. This is societal policy stuff we're talking about here. If you're going to try and tell me how you think the society I live in should function, then I expect a bit of evidence to back up why.

As someone who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, I don't disagree with many of the things that are said in the PoliGAF topic. But, it irks me to no end when I see "Republicans/Conservatives are the scum of the earth/kill children/are ignorant" type of posts because generalizations are dumb and ignorant in their own right.

Oh come on we're not that bad over there at all, and I really don't know what you're talking about with the kill children thing lol.

 

[Red Blaster]

Cmon man, we don't need that kind of tone in here.

Sorry, I don't do other people's research.

If you make a point, back that shit up with facts; don't tell the reader to go do it.

 

[Fugu]

Basically how I view things as well.

I'm about as far to the left as one can get and I share a similar statement. The scope of PoliGAF is narrow; they do not simply exclude conservatives and embrace all other viewpoints.

 

[NH Apache]

Oh hell yes we do. Look, we're not talking about individualized religious beliefs here. We're talking about beliefs with regard to societal policy that we all will have to live under. If you have a belief about policy you should make for damned sure it's backed up by some information and facts. You should have a credible belief when it comes to these things. And if you have absolutely nothing but "religion" or "background" informing that belief, then you're damned straight I'm going to say it's wrong if I have credible studies debunking the possible outcomes or ramifications of that belief as it is put into policy.

Again, this isn't individualized stuff. This is societal policy stuff we're talking about here. If you're going to try and tell me how you think the society I live in should function, then I expect a bit of evidence to back up why.





Oh come on we're not that bad over there at all, and I really don't know what you're talking about with the kill children thing lol.

RDreamer, for someone who professes that you are not conservative, you have the second most posts in a thread called ConservativeGAF. I understand that it may be your mission in life to live out your singular purpose and antagonize, but I don't really care what your opinion is or really believe that you represent the entirety of PoliGAF as you seem to imply in your post.

Thanks for your input.

Edit: I shouldn't have posted in the thread.

 

[K.Sabot]

RDreamer, for someone who professes that you are not conservative, you have the second most posts in a thread called ConservativeGAF. I understand that it may be your mission in life to live out your singular purpose and antagonize, but I don't really care what your opinion is or really believe that you represent the entirety of PoliGAF as you seem to imply in your post.

Thanks for your input.

Way to completely miss his point and straw man him.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Way to completely miss his point and straw man him.

Aaaand I'm out. It was fun identifying with other fiscal conservatives and saying hi. See you all around in other threads. And hey Power Pad Death Stomp - post in Wrasslegaf sometimes, don't just lurk! We're good dudes.

 

[soul creator]

When facts are being discussed, there is a wrong and a right side. Beliefs on the other hand, aren't necessarily right or wrong. People typically have these beliefs for some reason, whether it be religion, background, etc. There isn't a factually correct side to many of these issues. Sure, there may be popular sides of the coin, but factually wrong doesn't apply to these arguments.

I feel like this is one of the "trending arguments" I've seen in this thread by people who don't claim to be conservative. Supply all the information you want to argue a point, and good on you for doing so, but that doesn't mean that the individual has to see the liberal light, so to speak. Beliefs are individualized and really, you (not you personally, soulcreator, just an example) don't have the right to force your beliefs on another or say they are wrong.

As someone who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, I don't disagree with many of the things that are said in the PoliGAF topic. But, it irks me to no end when I see "Republicans/Conservatives are the scum of the earth/kill children/are ignorant" type of posts because generalizations are dumb and ignorant in their own right.

I've been on this board since 07 and been reading it for long before that. I really do enjoy this board for news and the commentary on the news. But I stay far away from PoliGAF because it isn't fun getting demeaned when you put down a rational argument. That being said, Opiate listed many legitimate reasons why the ratio is one sided and I've learned to understand that and suffer through the random bad political jokes that make their way into the non-political threads. I still love these forums and refuse to risk my membership on a political topic.

They should "see the liberal light" if those particular individuals are actually concerned with the things they believe actually being true (and if the liberal position is well supported by evidence, which is what one should always ask for). Sometimes, one "belief" can be faaaar more supported by facts than a different one. The whole point of methods like providing evidence, studies, etc. is that it gives us a way of actually resolving these things. Simply saying "well, that's just like, my opinion man!" indicates that someone cares more about the mere possession of a belief, rather than whether that belief is actually true or not. That may be fine for someone's preference of chocolate, but is completely useless in a political (and often, religious) discussion.

Never mind the fact that religions and political ideologies make plenty of claims that are in principle capable of being tested, and are not just "personal beliefs". It's rather dishonest to make a claim about the universe that we all live in, and are capable of observing and testing, and then retreat behind "personal belief" when the facts don't go in one's direction. Again, if we're strictly discussing a personal experience, then sure. No one can take anyone's personal experience or belief away from them. But once you bring it out into the world and discuss it with other people, and open yourself up to being tested, mere personal belief no longer matters.

I think a lot of people overestimate the amount of purely "hey man, it's just a personal belief, we'll never be able to figure it out!" political issues there actually are (at least, in US politics).

This article comes to mind in a lot of these discussions. It's written from the standpoint of religion, but a lot of it applies to politics as well

They’ll state their religious beliefs… and then, when challenged to provide some evidence supporting those beliefs, they’ll say something like, “That’s just what I believe. None of us can prove for 100% certain whether our beliefs are right. We all choose what to believe. So what’s the point in debating who’s right?”

I’ll be honest: I find it very hard to argue against this position. Mostly because I find it so utterly baffling. The idea that reality matters? The idea that we ought to care whether the things we believe are true? To me, this is close to a fundamental axiom. And when people say they don’t care about that, it leaves my jaw hanging in dumbfounded silence.

But that makes it a topic worth getting into. I like questioning my fundamental axioms. I think they’re worth examining. So I’m going to examine this one.

 

[Menelaus]

Didn't take long for the PoliGAF hivemind to start buzzing round this hive.

 

[RDreamer]

RDreamer, for someone who professes that you are not conservative, you have the second most posts in a thread called ConservativeGAF. I understand that it may be your mission in life to live out your singular purpose and antagonize, but I don't really care what your opinion is or really believe that you represent the entirety of PoliGAF as you seem to imply in your post.

Thanks for your input.

Is this some sort of thinly veiled "get out you're not welcome here?" I'm not trying to antagonize, and I really don't see how you can see it that way. This is a discussion forum. I'm discussing. Man, some of you just really really don't want to see your views discussed and/or challenged at all, do you?

And yes I'm not "conservative" now (in the sense of the American political spectrum... I did say I was voting for a conservative this November, though... Obama!), but I have explained in this thread why I'm here. I was once staunchly Republican. Not too long ago, actually, and I still hold those very same values and beliefs. As I pointed out, AlteredBeast talked about some of them very well in his post, and his type of conservatism I hold in high regard and relate to quite well. I relate to and sympathize conservatism in general pretty well. I also like to hear and discuss with people of differing beliefs.

Also never said I represent the entirety of PoliGAF, but you do seem to have a bad impression of them. AlteredBeast fits in quite well there, and he's a self professed conservative. Manos did pretty well in there for a while, and I for one loved having him around. A few people got sick of his shtick, but whatever. ToxicAdam, too, was pretty highly regarded. Yes, people like Kosmo were beat up on a bit in there, but that was Kosmo, and he was completely ridiculous and practically a troll. That RicochetJ person (I think that was his name) came in the other day, and yes he did have to defend from quite a few people, I'll admit, but everyone was pretty courteous to him.