Jump to content

RandomIdoit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RandomIdoit

  1. That's actually not true. You may register to vote any time after you have reached the age of 17 years and 10 months so that your registration can be processed in time for an election falling on or after you turn 18 years old. Other voter eligibility requirements include: You must be a citizen of the United States. You must reside in the county where you are registering. You must NOT be a convicted felon who is currently incarcerated, on parole, or probation.* You must NOT have been declared mentally incompetent in a court of law. Once you have completed your period of incarceration, parole, and/or probation your voting rights are restored. You may need to re-register to vote. My point is just having a national ID does not automatically mean that you are eligible to vote. And I could be wrong, but I think David Dennison wants everyone in the US to have a national ID, whether they are here legally or not.
  2. I love it. But how does this prove that people are eligible to vote? And what about the people that have other constraints besides the $16 it costs to get an ID?
  3. Let us know when that happens. Until then, your assertion it's not voter suppression is false. Fortunately, Texas let's you use paychecks, birth certificates, government checks and other ways for you to "identify" yourself to be able to vote. You just have to fill out a Reasonable Impediment Declaration.
  4. Every citizen or permanent resident should have an ID in my opinion. If they cannot afford the $16 to obtain one, then the state could provide one.
  5. The only voters who are suppressed by making sure they are authorized to vote are "voters" who are not authorized to vote.
  6. I'm not debating that. I'm saying if Joe from down the street shows up to vote, he should at a minimum show his id to be able to vote. Ideally, before he was allowed to vote he would need to prove that he is eligible to vote (US citizen, mentally competent, not a felon on parole or probation). I don't see how they could do this at the polls.
  7. Making sure someone is authorized to vote is not voter suppression. It's voter validation.
  8. Disagree. You should have to prove who you are to vote. You SHOULD have to prove that you are a citizen to vote as well, but I don't know how they would be able to do that in a timely manner.
  9. Some people say requiring a valid id is voter suppression.
  10. I'd like to see some numbers on this but have no idea where I could find them. And there are plenty of other reasons to vote for Democrats other than wanting to be taxed more. This would probably be the least popular reason for voting Democrat.
  11. Once again, they are not FORCED to live there. They want to live there or they feel obligated to live there to care for someone else that cannot or will not move with them. That's fine. In that case, they should educate themselves, learn a trade, or join the military. There are plenty of options for financial aid if they are poor and have dependents.
  12. But no one is forcing them to live where there are no better jobs. Yes it sucks and would require effort to move somewhere else, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's also not impossible to improve your job prospects. Maybe they should educate themselves or learn a trade. Maybe they should join the military. There are options out there.
  13. Who is forced to work for peanuts?
  14. What I am referring to is SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc. Of course the people needing the help are going to advocate for it. But of the people that are going to be providing the funds via taxes, very few are actually in favor of these policies in my opinion.
  15. Out of all the advocates for democratic socialism, what percentage of them do you suppose are takers? I would guess the overwhelming majority are people who are on government assistance a.k.a "takers". Then you have the small percentage who are "givers" that are philanthropic like bad_teammate.
  16. I'm not comparing the circumstances. It doesn't matter why these two different people are moving for this comparison. I'm comparing the ability of 2 different people to move from one place to another. One has more resources than the other, yet is not able to move 20 miles when the worse off person can successfully move 1,000+? My point is, a person could move across town or to the next town over if they were already being given a housing voucher and a food voucher. The moving expenses would come from, wait for it...........a job.
  17. Once again, I'm asking if these extremely poor people from Central America can immigrate over a thousand miles, why can't someone better off move 20 miles?
  18. You are the one who is losing their shit over kids being taken away from shitty parents. No one said poor parents. FondrenRoad said parents who were taking vouchers intended for their children and selling them to buy blow. You are always on here crying about the poor people of Central America and how they need to be let in to the US. Where do they get the money to travel across multiple countries? Where do they move to? What guarantee is there of a job here? So these people who are so poor that minimum wage would be a blessing can find a way to move over a thousand miles but it's absurd for someone to move across town or one town over?
  19. Yes. If you cannot be a responsible parent and your child's welfare is in danger, they should be taken away. CPS should be more proactive and not reactive. You always hear news stories about some children who have been abused or treated awfully who have has CPS called out to their homes over 10 times yet they were still allowed to stay there. What we are discussing is a person being given money for food and money for shelter. If that money is not enough, move. It's not expensive to move. A uhaul is $40 plus mileage.
  20. What if he puts it all on black and doubles his money? Does that make him a good parent? No. If he has a voucher for housing and it's not enough for housing and lights, he needs a better job or he needs to move somewhere else where his voucher can cover these costs.
  21. How much money is it going to take for your ideas to be implemented and sustained? How much money are the "billionaire supervillains" going to provide with your tax plan?
  22. Personally, I would be in favor of welfare for people who are not mentally fit or able-bodied. Anyone else, could and should work and not need any safety net, especially if they are getting a UBI. I could see a one month safety net in cases where you lose your job, but that's it. These programs should be supplemental, not primary sources of income.
  23. Safety nets are not permanent solutions. People do and will continue to treat them as such. This is why a lot of people would like to eliminate them if you gave everyone a UBI.
×
×
  • Create New...