Log in to check your private messages
The Politics Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34 ... 38, 39, 40  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:08 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Cerrinea
Master
Master

Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1491

Well, I suppose you all heard how Mitt reversed his abortion stance today. Just like he reversed his Social Security and Medicare stances.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:21 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Taral-DLOS
Master
Master

Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 1656
Location: Ontario, Canada

Caedus_16 wrote:
I actually don't toss it away, I withhold my vote. I refuse. I won't vote for either presidential candidate in the upcoming election. I think if more people who are dissatisfied with two-party system or at least the current options (and I know there are a lot of people who are) would withhold the system would be forced to change, or at least thrown into an uproar. So I encourage those who are unhappy with Obama/Romney or the Democratic/Republican party to withhold their vote.


Be ready to never complain about the government ever again, then. I reject it when someone complains about some policy the government is tossing around, but never bothered to vote (the simplest possible way to do something about it).

Vote for a third party candidate. I thought there were others, who just don't have a chance of winning.

But to vote is to do nothing. To reject democracy at its core because neither candidate is good enough. That doesn't make a difference.

Besides, it's impossible to coordinate a non-vote among hundreds of millions of people. One person would vote, and their choice would win.
_________________
"I'm...from Earth."

-Sparks Nevada, Marshal on Mars

"Who cares what evil lurks in the hearts of men!"
"Unless evil's carrying the Martini tray, darling."
-Frank and Sadie Doyle


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:48 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Jedi Joe
Master
Master

Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 1527

Cerrinea wrote:
Well, I suppose you all heard how Mitt reversed his abortion stance today. Just like he reversed his Social Security and Medicare stances.


...Again. Laughing

Caedus_16 wrote:
I actually don't toss it away, I withhold my vote. I refuse. I won't vote for either presidential candidate in the upcoming election. I think if more people who are dissatisfied with two-party system or at least the current options (and I know there are a lot of people who are) would withhold the system would be forced to change, or at least thrown into an uproar. So I encourage those who are unhappy with Obama/Romney or the Democratic/Republican party to withhold their vote.


I agree about being dissatisfied with the two candidates, but I'll still vote third-party in the election.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:29 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Cerrinea wrote:
Well, I suppose you all heard how Mitt reversed his abortion stance today.


Would you mind explaining how he reversed his stance? I believe you are referring to the Register interview, where Romney allegedly vows to not pursue legislation against abortion (posted below). However, in this very same quote he mentions one way in which he will combat it - ending foreign aid for abortions.

If you read the comment, which I have posted below, you will see that it is simply incorrect to say that Mitt Romney changed his position. He still holds a pro-life position, and he will still use his position in office to fight against abortion. And he does not rule out legislation either. In fact, the Romney campaign released a statement about his misconstrued quote: "[Romney] would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

Here is his original comment to the Register (emphasis is mine):

Quote:
REGISTER: Do you intend to pursue any legislation specifically regarding abortion?

ROMNEY: Thereís no legislation with regards to abortion that Iím familiar with that would become part of my agenda. One thing I would change, however, which would be done by executive order, not by legislation, is that I would reinstate the Mexico City policy, which is that foreign aid dollars from the United States would not be used to carry out abortion in other countries. Itís long been our practice here that taxpayer dollars are not to be used to fund abortion in this country. President Obama on the 10th day of his administration changed the Mexico City policy to say that abortion services were not prohibited in our foreign aid dollars. I would go back to the original so-called Mexico City policy."


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:42 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Cerrinea
Master
Master

Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1491

Numerous news organizations, conservatives and pro-life groups are stating that Romney has reversed his stance. I'm just reporting that so you should take the issue up with them; not me.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:56 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

-

Please don't get me wrong Cerrinea. I do not take issue with you, especially if Romney has indeed flopped on his stance, as has been alleged. You bringing it up was the first time I heard about it though, so I had to Google it to find out more. I am guessing the Register interview is where this story originated, though I cannot seem to find where he actually changes his position.

-


Last edited by Autobon on Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:53 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2217
Location: New York, USA

Mara Jade Skywalker wrote:
I can't speak for the party, but my personal agenda is pure. In my Parish in Louisiana, we have always had to show our ID. I also work the elections, so I know the process. It would be nigh impossible for someone to cheat with our checks and balances. It just seriously baffles me that so many people throw a fit about having an ID. You have to have an ID to get a bank account, to drive, to do so many other things. Why is this considered so ridiculous?


Forgive me for not being clear. I was specifically referring to cases that have come up during an election year that would require a voter ID card, not cases of voter ID laws that have been in place for a while. After Mike Turzai's comment it sounded like the PA voter ID law was passed to rig the election in PA, not prevent voter fraud. Naturally that would lead to questions of whether similar motives were behind other election year voter ID laws that were passed.

My guess is that it isn't so much that people would be against voter ID laws in any context. I think if the topic had been raised during a non-election year there might not be so much resistance, assuming of course the IDs would be free and easy enough to acquire. But during an election year there are going to be questions over whether the issue is being raised out of a genuine concern to prevent voter fraud or out of the hope of rigging the election. Personally I have no problem with voter ID laws being passed in a non-election year so long as the IDs are 1) free 2) easily obtained (in the sense of not difficult for poor, elderly, or disabeled to acquire).

EDIT: Med Grove Rule Update For those of you who are not yet aware the Med Grove Rules have been updated Please take a moment to read the new rules if you have not already done so.
http://www.eucantina.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=42
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:39 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:
I think if the topic had been raised during a non-election year there might not be so much resistance, assuming of course the IDs would be free and easy enough to acquire.


So will you be in support of voter ID laws after the November election (assuming they are free and easy to obtain)? To otherwise function equally in a modern society, you absolutely need an ID; shouldn't voting to make someone President of the Unites States require at least the same amount of verification as cashing a check or driving a car?

-


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2217
Location: New York, USA

Autobon wrote:
Salaris Vorn wrote:
I think if the topic had been raised during a non-election year there might not be so much resistance, assuming of course the IDs would be free and easy enough to acquire.


So will you be in support of voter ID laws after the November election (assuming they are free and easy to obtain)? To function in a modern society, you absolutely need an ID; shouldn't voting to make someone President of the Unites States require at least the same amount of fraud prevention as cashing a check or checking into a hotel?

-


In theory yes voting for President would count. However, not if that means passing a law during an election year.

The courts by and large sound like they have agreed with me on this point. Namely that during an election year having new voter ID laws go into effect before the election carries too great a risk of disenfrancising legit voters.

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/10/08/2277735/ruling-a-victory-for-voters-rights.html

http://dailyranger.com/story.php?story_id=3881&headline=Voter-I.D.-laws-won't-be-big-factor-after-all
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:08 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:
* article links *


An interesting quote from one of those articles you linked to -

Quote:
The United States turned the page on voter discrimination with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibited practices that had kept African-Americans from exercising a basic tenant of democracy.Critics of the voter ID laws enacted or attempted in more than a dozen states since Obama was elected in 2008 compare them with Jim Crow laws common in primarily southern states.


This reminded me of when billionaire William Louis-Dreyfuss bought full page ad in the New York Times to announce his million dollar contribution to battle what he calls "racist" voter suppression.

This is silly to any voter ID proponent of course, but it is unfortunately a talking point that gets a lot of coverage. Does anyone actually believe that minorities, who are plenty capable of figuring out how to vote, are incapable of getting some form of ID? That seems truly racist to me.

(for the record, Salaris himself never made this point, nor do I accuse him of alluding to it)

-


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:44 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Cerrinea
Master
Master

Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1491

46 million Americans live below the poverty level; 60% of those are racial or ethnic minorities. Yet all racial and ethnic minorities combined are only 30% of the total population. The disproportion here is obvious. Hence, laws that complicate the ability of people to vote, further complicates it for the poor which contain a disproportionate amount of racial and ethnic minorities. Hence, the law is aimed at racial and ethnic minorities whether or not that was the intention.

Perhaps people are making the Jim Crow connection because Jim Crow not only originally created the disproportion of racial and ethnic poor minorities, it perpetuated that state.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:37 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3891
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/2012-or-never-for-gops-white-base.html

On the subject of non-voting/wasted votes, what do you think about approval voting? That of voting for more than one person.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:23 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6488
Location: Missouri

Being able to vote for more than one person for the same position?

As for the voter ID thing, I'd agree with Cerrinea that it is aimed at racial and ethnic minorities. Isn't illegal immigrants one of the big reasons for wanting to push that legislation?

Regardless, the law would certainly affect a broad group. There would be minorities who would be burdened by it. The question is whether it causes more harm than good on balance? What are the stats on dead people who vote in elections, illegal immigrants, and other non-valid voters versus those who are legal voters, but would be burdened to the point that they would not be able to vote?
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:25 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Caedus_16
Master
Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 4770
Location: Korriban

Darth Skuldren wrote:
Being able to vote for more than one person for the same position?

As for the voter ID thing, I'd agree with Cerrinea that it is aimed at racial and ethnic minorities. Isn't illegal immigrants one of the big reasons for wanting to push that legislation?

Regardless, the law would certainly affect a broad group. There would be minorities who would be burdened by it. The question is whether it causes more harm than good on balance? What are the stats on dead people who vote in elections, illegal immigrants, and other non-valid voters versus those who are legal voters, but would be burdened to the point that they would not be able to vote?


I had not even considered the illegal immigration angle, that's a different twist on it.

I'm still against forcing people to show ID as long as an ID costs money. When it becomes free for everyone sure, require it all you want Uncle Sam, but until that point it isn't fair to a large portion of the nation.
_________________
Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger

 PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:37 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 6488
Location: Missouri

I know I've heard the photo ID's are free in some places, but I've also heard they cost money in others. I would think that if they passed a law requiring photo ID's, it would be fundamental that the law include legislation allowing everyone to get a free ID.
_________________

"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 33 of 40
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 32, 33, 34 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield