Thing is, I don't see Liberal elected officials around the country making up new laws to restrict guns. On the other hand, pretty much every state with Republican control has instituted some sort of voter ID/restriction law since Obama got elected. Studies show that actual voter fraud is negligible so the only explanation for this is a partisan one. That is an affront to democracy and very unfortunate IMO
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
ConservativeGAF
- Thread starter Reagan's BR
- Start date
- Status
Thing is, I don't see Liberal elected officials around the country making up new laws to restrict guns. On the other hand, pretty much every state with Republican control has instituted some sort of voter ID/restriction law since Obama got elected. Studies show that actual voter fraud is negligible so the only explanation for this is a partisan one. That is an affront to democracy and very unfortunate IMO
Then give everyone free ID. Nobody on this forum would be against that.
Otherwise, it's discriminatory - whether intentional or otherwise.
Sye d'Burns
Member
It doesn't help that half the time Stewart/Colbert are being used as a cudgel against the conservatives but as soon as they stick their foot in their mouth they're nothing more than a comedian.
Just imagine how different PoliGAF would be if all the conservatives here posted there and backed each other up, instead of whining about the dogpiling. Sure, liberals would still have a (slight) majority in PoliGAF, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the liberal echo chamber it is currently. Even just a handful of conservatives regularly posting in PoliGAF would change the tone.
As anyone who's been on GAF long enough can attest to, most of ConservaGAF only tends to show up when they have something to boast about, or threads like these to complain about how unfairly they are treated. This is exactly why ToxicAdam is/was so revered in PoliGAF, because he showed up even when things aren't rosey for the Right
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
If you're a legal citizen, sure. I'm all for that.
I'm not concerned about fraud with regards to ID - and this sounds weird when typed out but I only want actual American citizens voting. I don't think that's too much to ask, and let everyone have free ID.
teruterubozu
Member
To be fair, guys like Rush resort to the "entertainer" label when shit hits the fan too.
What about gun control laws?
Evil Benius
Member
You of course run into the age old problem of no one wants to be the first.
Gun control laws aren't even in the same league of importance to liberals than ID laws seem to be for conservatives. The most liberal state in the nation, one that voted for single payer health insurance and has voted for an open socialist senator, Bernie Sanders time and again, also has the absolute least restrictive gun laws in the nation. Obama in his time as president has done nothing but expand gun rights, allowing them to be carried in national parks and amtrak.
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
I'm pretty conservative and all I can do is echo what's already been said: why bother?
Everyone already thinks I'm a bigoted scumbag as soon as I say I'm conservative, I'll just stick to lurking wrasslegaf.
Everyone already thinks I'm a bigoted scumbag as soon as I say I'm conservative, I'll just stick to lurking wrasslegaf.
First off, I wouldn't compare differences over gun control to partisan voter restriction laws that target minorities and the poor (who typically vote for the opposition). There IS a gun violence problem in the country. Not so with vote-fraud.
Second, what gun control laws? The gun lobby is so strong, Democrats don't even try anymore. I wish there was a voter lobby to protect the right to vote for ALL!
Dreamcaster
Banned
These are the types of issues that I think make ConservativeGAF throw their hands up in the air. When VoterID is discussed, it pretty quickly devolves into calling it a racist initiative and if you support it you must be a racist (or at least be willing to turn a blind eye to racism). Yet there are tons of government programs that require ID, and yet in those instances requiring ID is not considered racist for some reason.
I am not for States trying to jam Voter ID in right before an election, but what would be wrong with saying "Beginning in 2020 you will need a Voter ID to vote" and then making those IDs available for free for those who cannot afford them, etc. I can see both sides.
I'm not trying to troll ConservaGAF here, but the problem is that voter ID is a poll tax and poll taxes in America have an unfortunately racist history. I would have no problem with a voter ID program which would guarantee that nobody with the franchise would be turned away for attempting to vote legitimately -- it seems to me that that should be our constitutional imperative when creating election procedures, no?
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
Voter ID laws shouldn't be a partisan issue! I would guarantee there is just as much shady shit going on in favor of both parties. Common sense says that we should have a fair and open process. Give state ID cards away for free and if we have to physically bring them to you, so be it. The less dead people and pets voting the better for BOTH SIDES.
Oh wait I mean, I hate brown people.
I'd definitely be for something like this. Freely available IDs that puts the burden on the state rather than on the person to get them shouldn't disenfranchise people, especially if you give it enough notice and time to advertise that things will not change. That way people don't come to the polls and wonder why the fuck they suddenly can't vote like they always have. Sounds great to me!
Except it also doesn't sound very fiscally conservative. You're advocating for a big government program to spend a fuckton of money on something that combats an almost non-existent problem. I mean, as long as you're ok with that, then cool, lol.
You do realize that the people calling racism on the programs are calling racism on the ones as they are put in place in reality. You guys in this thread saying give away the IDs and make it free and open are absolutely correct, and that wouldn't be racism if done right. But that's not the programs being put into place right now.
So only degrees of importance to so and so party matter now?
Well, guns are a right just like voting is. It's also not like voting itself is not restricted. You can't vote until you are the age of 18 and theoretically, you're only supposed to be able to vote if you are an American citizen. Now, how do we know the second is true if there are no voter ids required?
And even if there is little voter fraud, that is still not a compelling reason not to have voter ids. Like I said, I would prefer someone who actively looks to vote cast their ballot rather than someone who is ignorant about the issues coming in and voting blindly. If that is all the liberals care about is exploiting the ignorant masses to gain political power, then that is wrong.
Last sentence said tongue in cheek 
Yes. You are right on the imperative. Keeping the franchise universal is absolutely essential for the foundations of a democratic system. Denying people the vote is tyrannical. It's one thing to try to influence people to vote your way through debate, it's another to try to bypass them by somehow denying them the vote. I could never support that. Everyone should have a say in public matters which affect them. I usually debate for libertarian ideals, but I want any libertarian policy I advocate to be brought in with the support of the majority which has been convinced through solid reasoning and debate.
If we deny anyone the vote we start going down a very dangerous path, because if you rob people of their right to govern themselves through the ballot box it can escalate with people taking matters into their own hands through violence and civil unrest.
The person you responded to said he doesn't see liberals around the country making up new laws to the degree that voter ID laws are being put in place, and I'd say that's pretty true. Nearly every Republican lead state as of late has tried to put something into place. I pointed out that the most extremely liberal state, the opposite end of the spectrum, has done absolutely nothing on your issue that you brought up. In fact they are opposite and have the most open laws in the nation with regard to guns. I also brought up that under Obama's lead we've had even more open gun rights. The issues are simply not equivalent.
Sye d'Burns
Member
Just little more than 50 posts ago, a mod said that certain views held by social conservatives are bannable offenses. This is, of course, common knowledge and even still social conservatives by no means make up all of the conservative views on GAF. Yet, even those that aren't explicitly bound in their opinions (ie not social conservative) are under the same threat of being pigeonholed into an opinion that they don't hold by posters who assume something to be racist / misogynist / anti-lgbt / or even too stridently pro-life and face the possibility of being banned by being baited into losing their cool, misspeaking when defending a position they had no intention of defending or simply by a mod having a bad day.
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.
Why play with fire? It's not worth it? It's not particularly fun and eventually you will be burned. It's better to just watch the liberal side of GAF form their circle and have their fun.
Finally, with PoliGAF off in community, I forget its existence for months at a time.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
It isn't fiscally conservative, but I personally rank trying to clean up voting and making sure it is done by American citizens is something that I feel we need to take the money hit for, and make it free for everyone.
There's a lot of personal sacrifice in a lot of fiscal conservatives. A lot of "Well -I- won't get as big a payout as I used to, but it'll be used here, here, and here and that's best for America" - which is how I feel about many policies. It's shades of grey, and what I feel might be best for America in one program, another fiscal conservative may feel is a foolish waste of money and disagree. And that's okay.
I'm fiscally conservative when I vote in France. I voted for Bayrou (lol), then Sarkozy in this year's election. But of course the European scale is completely different to the American one.
When I vote in the US, I tend to be very liberal on issues that are a given in Europe, such as universal healthcare and free education, and then for everything else tend once again to be financially conservative.
Socially in both countries I am very liberal: just voted for same sex marriage and marijuana legislation. Pro-choice. Biden explained it best yesterday, I understand people who don't like abortion, but please don't force your convictions on others, it's up to the woman to decide.
On a side note, I just voted in WA yesterday, and I decided not to look at the candidate's party affiliation before choosing who I'd vote for (of course this didn't really work for Obama, Cantwell, or Inslee). For all of the state-level elections (except the governor), I read each candidate's page on the WA election's site and chose who to vote for before reading their political affiliation on the ballot. I ended up voting for the Democrat each time.
I have no issues with conservatives (social conservatives a.k.a idiots are different), but I don't understand how so many can defend the modern day Republican party. Reagan pushed the country far to the right and pulled the Democrat party along with him. Eisenhower would be a Democrat today. Democrats are conservatives at this point, Republicans are crazy, and there is no real liberal alternative.
When I vote in the US, I tend to be very liberal on issues that are a given in Europe, such as universal healthcare and free education, and then for everything else tend once again to be financially conservative.
Socially in both countries I am very liberal: just voted for same sex marriage and marijuana legislation. Pro-choice. Biden explained it best yesterday, I understand people who don't like abortion, but please don't force your convictions on others, it's up to the woman to decide.
On a side note, I just voted in WA yesterday, and I decided not to look at the candidate's party affiliation before choosing who I'd vote for (of course this didn't really work for Obama, Cantwell, or Inslee). For all of the state-level elections (except the governor), I read each candidate's page on the WA election's site and chose who to vote for before reading their political affiliation on the ballot. I ended up voting for the Democrat each time.
I have no issues with conservatives (social conservatives a.k.a idiots are different), but I don't understand how so many can defend the modern day Republican party. Reagan pushed the country far to the right and pulled the Democrat party along with him. Eisenhower would be a Democrat today. Democrats are conservatives at this point, Republicans are crazy, and there is no real liberal alternative.
I agree and I wouldn't complain if IDs were given away for free to EVERYONE. Thing is, there has been voting without photo ID for decades but suddenly it's not okay even though there are hardly any reported cased of willful voter fraud (Not voter registration. Actual voter fraud). The only difference is that the demographics of the country are not favorable to Republicans anymore. Instead of trying to appeal to a changing country, they want to stop certain groups from voting. It's shameful.
Too bad there's nothing like that in the constitution. Everyone over 18 should be allowed to vote. In fact, I bet most liberals would be fine if voting was mandatory.
It works very well in Australia. (Mandatory voting).
It cuts out a lot of work for political parties. You don't have to motivate your base/heartland voters. Our electoral system seems to be designed to push politicians towards the centre. We have mandatory voting, along with AV+ meaning the big parties don't need to worry about being flanked by a more extreme party.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
See, I don't get this considering the size of the problem. Its like going out and buying a new house because you found ants under your sink.
That's not why, at least for me.
I have a lot of strongly liberal RL friends (campaigned for Obama in fact) who don't ostracize me and actually really love my company me despite our severe difference of opinion on issues. Why? It is because we are concerned and more interested in other areas of our lives that overlap. After, reading posts in the political threads, I don't get the feeling I'll be extended the same judgment and treatment with understanding here. And, then here are posts like this, even when half-joking, send a strong message.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. It also isn't worth the possible ban due to a misunderstanding or being ignored and disregarded for a stance on a few issues.
I'd also say I still lurk in the political threads to get a better feel and understanding of liberal values and arguments. Once a while there are good points to be read, but usually those get ignored and/or lost. Anyway, part of the reason politicians can lie so much now without consequences is because both sides are segregating themselves into bubbles that prevent one from hearing the other side let alone being able to negotiate with or make sense of it. It is too bad you aren't able to easily find people comfortably making arguments in the conservative direction here, but things are what they are.
Dude Abides
Banned
You're the one who wants to make it more difficult to exercise a basic constitutional right. The burden is on you to justify why it should be more difficult, not on others to provide a compelling reason not to do so.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I feel it just needs to be less difficult to have the ID, so it doesn't make voting more difficult. Or at least not as difficult as it would be currently.
The Lamonster
Member
I like all the "we exist but we never post because libural gaf is too mean" sentiment in this thread. For some odd reason, all the conservatives I know never want to debate the actual issues. Why does this ideology have such issue with specifics? Serious question. You've seen it hardcore from Romney/Ryan in the last two debates.
There are already gun control laws in effect right now. The federal government has passed certain laws to do this and each state is free to mandate as they see fit as long as it does not conflict against federal gun control laws. What is left for those extremely liberal states to pass if there are already gun control laws at the federal level?
Voter ID laws, on the other hand, don't exist in states. Now you can argue that states like Pennsylvania trying to pass these laws right before the elections is unethical, and I agree with that, but let's not pretend like there are voter id laws already in place like gun control laws.
And that constitutional right is already restricted. You can't vote until you are 18. You shouldn't be able to vote unless you are an American citizen.
Just like other constitutional rights like guns.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
You like it? :| Why do you like us feeling like we shouldn't bother posting?
Because they're scared for their accounts? A mod even said that many socially conservative positions are bannable. That's fine. It's their forum but you wonder why the argument is so skewed in one direction?
You need to show government ID to vote in France, but then again everyone has one, you need one for pretty much everything and they're free to get.
I'd be OK with Voter ID laws in the US if this were the case: everyone had one and they were free. I'm not OK with the laws being put in place by Republicans in swing or Democratic-leaning states by Republican officials just before the election. I don't know how you can deny this is voter suppression, the Republicans themselves have said it (cf YT video posted earlier).
Considering mandatory voting, I don't think it'd be good to have more uninformed voters voting. I do think it should be easier to vote though (vote by mail in every state, voting on the Internet, that kind of thing). It's much easier to research the candidates when you have the ballot and your computer both in front of you and don't have a whole line of people waiting for you to finish. I know for sure if I had to vote in person I'd vote randomly for all the down ballot non-partisan elections.
I'd be OK with Voter ID laws in the US if this were the case: everyone had one and they were free. I'm not OK with the laws being put in place by Republicans in swing or Democratic-leaning states by Republican officials just before the election. I don't know how you can deny this is voter suppression, the Republicans themselves have said it (cf YT video posted earlier).
Considering mandatory voting, I don't think it'd be good to have more uninformed voters voting. I do think it should be easier to vote though (vote by mail in every state, voting on the Internet, that kind of thing). It's much easier to research the candidates when you have the ballot and your computer both in front of you and don't have a whole line of people waiting for you to finish. I know for sure if I had to vote in person I'd vote randomly for all the down ballot non-partisan elections.
I think this is fine too. If voting is so important, make it mandatory and everyone has to vote.
Edit: Of course, I would include that IDs would be necessary in this case. And it seems like other countries like France do it. The IDs should definitely be free and given when a person becomes 18.
I'm going to pick on bulbo here -
I remember when he started posting, I don't know if he's conservative, libertarian or what - but he wasn't particularly liberal (by GAF standards). But he posted a lot, and sometimes he got laughed at, mocked or... who knows what. A whole host of things he had to put up with at first when posted. Some of it was because he didn't really 'get' the posting style of GAF yet, and some of it was because he was a minority and easy to pick on (lol).
But... looking at his posts now, a lot of gaffers respect his positions. He throws in a lot of humour, but it doesn't grate on people, and he provides a really good buffer to the echo chamber in a lot of politicized threads. I can't speak for his treatment entirely, as I don't stalk him or anything, but it really does feel like he's garnered a lot of respect in the last year.
On top of that, this might be a bit conceited and presumptuous of me to say, he's become a pretty decent debater. He presents his points well, and he seems to be open to being wrong from time to time - which helps him craft a stronger, more stable position to stand on.
Basically what this little mini-rant is trying to say is, yeah it might be hard at first - but it's also rewarding (I think) having these debates/discussions/arguments. If you do it well, you gain respect, you gain knowledge and I'd go as far as to say you gain skills that will carry over into the 'real world' as well.
I really want all gaffers, conservative and otherwise, to challenge themselves with debates and arguments and the like - the amount of growth I've had from constantly throwing myself in the ring is tremendous, I look back to 3 or 4 years ago when I started posting on the forum and I was pretty much an idiot. I think I am a bit less of one now.
If you don't care about providing some back and forth for the rest of GAF to help them grow, I really think you should consider how being in that position might help you grow.
Also, on another note... I feel like just in this thread I've tried to... engage conservative gaffers in a really polite, constructive and productive way, and aside from someone telling me they thought I was one of the 'good' liberal posters in terms of respectfulness (makes me feel fancy being complimented), no one has really wanted to engage me. I think maybe people are worried about being the first one out of the gate? Is there anything Gaffers like me, who are willing to put in the effort, could do to make engaging with you guys comfortable? Any baby-step topics we can start on? Any particular 'handicaps' you'd like provided to make the transition easier?
For people who really want to engage, not just the ones who claim they do but in reality just don't want their world views challenged (these people exist in every social, philosophical and intellectual circle), I think that there is an opportunity here, and I hope you consider my proposition(s).
On a final note, I want to give a quick anecdote that I think really highlights a very substantial boost I have personally gotten from being challenged on this board - a recent one at that. A little while ago I was debating evolution with Sanky - we were discussing a particular experiment that involved yeast cells imitating the process of going from single-cell to multi-cell organisms. Sanky sort of dismissed it out of hand, and we got into it - and we both progressively started to get more and more specific in our debating points. What ended up happening is... by the next day I could read a pretty fancy peer reviewed study and understand it. I went to the nitty gritty PDF files and pored through them looking to comprehend and better debate with Sanky, and putting asides the gains I got for the purpose of that specific debate - since then when I look at similar peer reviewed studies, I immediately understand the format. I can see the patterns, I know 'where' to look for particular information and it just became more readable for me. In general, I grew in a way that made me feel wonderful, and it would not have happened if Sanky wasn't willing to be such a contrarian bum-face
.
Dude Abides
Banned
But that is a completely separate issue from requiring people to have ID to vote.
The 18 year restriction is in the Constitution. Nothing in there about ID.
You can't vote unless you are an American citizen. Nobody argues otherwise. You are arguing you should be required to prove it specifically by showing ID, for reasons you haven't explained.
It's funny to me that you feel this way in the New Era of Civility. I mean, I feel exactly the same way about avoiding touchy subjects for fear of getting banned for my opinion now. Equality?
But how do we construct a system in which the requirement to get an ID is not a de facto poll tax? Even requiring proof of address is a de facto tax -- at the bare minimum, you need a permanent address, and a bill, for a good or service, addressed to you at that address.
edit:
I'd be fine with mandatory voting.
The Lamonster
Member
Sorry, I was not aware...what positions are those, anyway?
Yes, I acknowledged this already. Like I said, instead of joining other (brave) conservatives in PoliGAF and trying to change the tone there, most on here would rather complain about how mean GAF is.
It's perfectly OK that some social conservative positions are bannable on GAF. Wanna guess which issues Opiate was referring to?
EDIT: And yes, as this thread proves, there are far more conservatives on GAF than it would seem. Again, most on show up when there's something to boast about, or threads like these. I'd put it at about 65-35 Left lean.
No interracial marriage! What's next? Gays marrying?
Well, apparently there is something left after the government's laws. As I said, Vermont has the most lax laws in the entire country. What that means is that they're more open than, say, Texas.
Sure, voter ID laws don't exist, but we were talking in terms of rights. You just said in your post that voting rights laws already exist at the federal level:
Along with that felons can't vote, etc. So what's left for those right leaning states to do, if there are already restrictions on voting at the federal level?
But, seriously, these aren't equivalent issues for either side, and it's kind of silly to keep arguing like that. How about we argue about voting laws, and then we argue about gun laws in a separate discussion. There's really no need to bring in a "Well your side does it with X thing."
Yep, ID's cost money and time. From what I understand in states trying to enact voter ID laws they are also trying to shut down offices which give them out.
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.
As has been said, most of us have no problem with it if the IDs were given for free.
That's not what the conservatives enacting these laws want to do.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I understand what you mean. I just feel that both of these issues can be resolved hand in hand with free and easier to get identification. Why do I feel they should have to prove that with their ID? Because it makes people more accountable and can help push away some voter fraud, and ensures people who are citizens that have identification can prove it. Thing is, the reasons why are my own - not my particular party's platform. It's just what I feel should be done.
Hard question, and I'm not qualified to really say how we need to build that - any ideas that I come up with would surely be laughed out of any serious conversation about rebuilding how getting an ID is done, because I simply don't know how to. I can say "well just make it free goddammit" but that's not how the world works. How do other countries deal with it, let's say like Austrailia has with mandatory voting? And how do we adapt it to the American system?
I didn't bring up the gun laws issue. It was one of your fellow liberal posters. See? This is what is stupid about posting our views on Gaf. A poster throws in an argument and we argue against it. Someone else comes in and takes up the mantle for that person, and suddenly, the argument I'm making is not important even though it was one of your own fellow liberal who brought up the issues in the first place.
*rolls eyes* I am done.
Then I agree that those need to be changed to be accessible for everyone. I don't want to deny access to voting to people who can legitimately vote. That is not my intention.
Dude Abides
Banned
Hypothetical scaremongering about illegals is insufficient to carry your burden of demonstrating that it should be more difficult to vote than the Constitution currently permits. If you want to impose additional hurdles for no real reason, get the Constitution amended.
How does France deal with free IDs? They don't spend all their tax revenue building tanks the military doesn't want. And it's free once every ten years, if you lose it in the meantime, you need to spend 25 on a new one.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know how well the "free every 10 years" would do here in America, we'd probably have to change that to...every month. :|
I'm not touching your tank talk!
Sye d'Burns
Member
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.
- Status