Should voters be required to show photo ID?

[Caliga]

1) Minimizing free riders and system abuse is a top priority.
2) As is minimizing costs to the tax payers.
3) People in difficulties are best helped by not coddling them. That will encourage them to pull themselves out of their difficulties. If they don't, it's likely because they're not sufficiently motivated.
4) Social assistance is best handled through private charities, such as religious charities, as it will be cheaper for the tax payer.
5) Introducing private profit motives into social programs (for the dispensers of the programs, not the recipients) is a recipe for improving efficiency and saving money.
6) People should have freedom of choice, and if population groups are consistently mired in bad social circumstances it is primarily because they're making bad choices. They should make better choices. The best way to affect that is through threats of punishment such as withdrawing social programs. This will encourage them to make better choices.
7) People mired in bad social situations are most likely there because they've developed a culture of dependency on social assistance.

1, 2, 3 and 4 are I believe generally accepted among Republicans, yes.  Not as sure about #5 unless you're talking specifically about only certain programs like education.  I don't know if items #6 and 7 are actually part of the standard Republican platform but I do think alot of Republicans personally would agree with that. statement.

[Caliga]

Caliga?

How many times do I have to plainly state on Languish that I'm not a Republican for people to accept it?  I'm a registered Democrat and have been one my entire life.  The only time I ever voted for a Republican for POTUS in my entire life was in 2000 for George W. Bush.

[Admiral Yi]

<CROP CROP CROP>

While I may be clearly displaying my own bias, I do not think it's terribly inaccurate to summarize that as "scapegoating, disenfranchisement and/or neglect".

Do I have the wrong idea of the Republican approach to social issues, or do you take issue with my summary as being inaccurate?

I take issue with your summary as being innacurate and loaded.  Disenfranchisement means taking away someone's vote.  That term makes about as much sense as warmongering would in this context.

Scapegoating means someone has committed a wrong for which another person is being blamed.  Are you saying that inner city poors are jonesing something fierce for fresh fruit and vegetables but the evil Korean grocery store owners are denying it to them out of pure racial animus?  Saying that someone chooses to eat a shitty diet doesn't fit my definition of scapegoating.

Neglect could work if you start with the assumption that government has the responsibility to prevent bad outcomes.  If you think government's responsibility does not extend to stopping individuals from making all bad choices, then it's not neglect.

grabon: I thought you said you're mom was Hindustani.

[katmai]

@garbo Does your mom look like Robin Quivers?

IIRC grabon's mom is a Hindustani.

That's a joke, right?

It made me chuckle.

[Razgovory]

Well they did neglect to get born wealthy.

[garbon]

grabon: I thought you said you're mom was Hindustani.

I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.

[garbon]

If you're going to do that, you might as well then say it isn't terribly inaccurate to summarize the Dem position as "throw enough money at it and you'll be able to solve the issue."

I'll accept that, if not for Democrats, then at least for myself.

I'd put it slightly differently, but it's not that far off - "you can't solve or significantly address social problems if you're unwilling to commit the money to do so."

Doesn't seem like a very nice view of people. We can get them to change any behavior as long as we have enough cash?

[Admiral Yi]

I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.

Pretty hard to argue with that.  You wouldn't have been pretending that your dad is black if he were black too.

[garbon]

I wouldn't have been pretending to be Indian if my mother was Indian.

Pretty hard to argue with that.  You wouldn't have been pretending that your dad is black if he were black too.

I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

OK.

Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?

[katmai]

Awesome, now know what threads to talk about yi in.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

OK.

Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?

IIRC he pretended to be Indian IRL and told us about it on the forum. His only claims to be Indian here were jokes, not a hoax.

[Jacob]

I take issue with your summary as being innacurate and loaded.  Disenfranchisement means taking away someone's vote.  That term makes about as much sense as warmongering would in this context.

Scapegoating means someone has committed a wrong for which another person is being blamed.  Are you saying that inner city poors are jonesing something fierce for fresh fruit and vegetables but the evil Korean grocery store owners are denying it to them out of pure racial animus?  Saying that someone chooses to eat a shitty diet doesn't fit my definition of scapegoating.

Neglect could work if you start with the assumption that government has the responsibility to prevent bad outcomes.  If you think government's responsibility does not extend to stopping individuals from making all bad choices, then it's not neglect.

I'll cop to loaded, but not inaccurate.

There are enough initiatives going on that are squarely aimed at minimizing participation of likely non-Republican voters that I think disenfranchisement is accurate, even if the stated motive is not explicitly that but things like eliminating voter fraud.

Scapegoating is accurate when the outcome of complex social pressures is summarized as "it's your own fault, if you worked harder/ cared more/ made better choices you'd not be in difficulty". I believe that the solution is not as simple as just giving people free money, but saying it's someone's fault that they were born poor and never had access or exposure to means of improving their situation is scapegoating them for their situation.

Since I do assume that the government has a responsibility to if not prevent bad outcomes, at least work to mitigate them. Or more accurately, since I believe in freedom too, to provide people with as many tools and assistance to help them make constructive choices. Failing to do so is, in fact neglect in my view.

So yeah, it's a description that shows my bias but while it shows my judgement of Republican values on the issues, I don't think it misrepresents them.

[garbon]

I don't follow. It was pretty much common knowledge on here that I pretended to be Indian for a little bit.

OK.

Was the hoax revealed by any chance in the comic book, anime, or NHL threads?

IIRC he pretended to be Indian IRL and told us about it on the forum. His only claims to be Indian here were jokes, not a hoax.

Thanks and it wasn't even that shady. Everyone just assumed I was Indian (very odd given my hair) and I simply didn't correct their errors.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, Indians don't typically have pink hair.