Should voters be required to show photo ID?

[Jacob]

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?

That's your spin.

What I meant is:

"You can't provide good education if you're not willing to pay for adequate schools, text books and teacher salaries."
"You can't tend properly to the health of your population if you prioritize private wealth creation in the health sector over population coverage in your spending."
"You can't address poverty induced malnutrition and health issues if you're not willing to pay for the education and social programs that are necessary to address poverty."
"You can't address poverty if you're not willing to pay for the education and health programs necessary to give people the tools to climb out of poverty."

I'm not saying that any way you throw money at the problem is going to work. Nor am I saying that the Democrats always get it right. But I am saying you're not going to address social problems if you're not willing to put resources into doing so, and it's my very distinct impression that the Republican party is strongly against committing any such resources on moral (it's their own fault) and financial (less spending is always better) grounds.

[CountDeMoney]

Thanks for doing all the typing on these issues, Jacob.  Saves me a lot of time.

[Jacob]

Thanks for doing all the typing on these issues, Jacob.  Saves me a lot of time.

[KRonn]

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.

Heh, I believe you. The thing I find when discussing issues with Democratic/Republican friends/relatives is that we agree on most everything because most of us are centrist on most issues, like most people. Far fewer people are strong lefties or righties. Most are a lot more centrist, with maybe a couple of issues that they go stronger left or right on. So even though you might have some "conservative" views, doesn't mean you're a right winger.

[garbon]

That's your spin.

Well why not? Your cogent analysis of republicans has been all about spin, no?

What I meant is:

"You can't provide good education if you're not willing to pay for adequate schools, text books and teacher salaries."
"You can't tend properly to the health of your population if you prioritize private wealth creation in the health sector over population coverage in your spending."
"You can't address poverty induced malnutrition and health issues if you're not willing to pay for the education and social programs that are necessary to address poverty."
"You can't address poverty if you're not willing to pay for the education and health programs necessary to give people the tools to climb out of poverty."

Again money is only part of the equation. If you can't corral the hearts and minds, doesn't matter what money you toss about. You have to get people on board, you can't force choices for them which might be a complaint about Democrats. There often seems to be the assumption that they now what's best on how to solve the world's ills. Of course, Repubs do often lean towards washing their hands.

I'm not saying that any way you throw money at the problem is going to work. Nor am I saying that the Democrats always get it right. But I am saying you're not going to address social problems if you're not willing to put resources into doing so, and it's my very distinct impression that the Republican party is strongly against committing any such resources on moral (it's their own fault) and financial (less spending is always better) grounds.

I'm not sure Republicans are entirely averse to spending money but when your political opponents take stands as modern Robin Hoods...

[Admiral Yi]

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.

My previous post (not the ones to grabon) were based on the assumption that we were talking specifically about inner city groceries.

If I were the head of the RNC and I hired you to come up with a plan to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, and you came back with "require ID cards," I'd fire you and demand a refund.  The number of people in this country without a single ID is tiny.  The subset of those who vote is tinier still.  It's ridiculously easy to get an ID.

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.

I think the term you were looking for is "blaming the victim," but that's nit-picking.  I don't deny that there is demonization of the underclass by some on the right (though significantly less than the demonization of the rich by some on the left IMO), but that fact doesn't mean that all opposition to expansion of the social safety net is based on demonization of the poor.

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.

As many tools and assistance as what?  Enough so that everyone makes good decisions?

[Razgovory]

I'm curious.  If voter suppression efforts where the only way to get the conservative agenda through, would it be worth it?

[garbon]

I'm curious.  If voter suppression efforts where the only way to get the conservative agenda through, would it be worth it?

Much like the Dems, perhaps the Republicans really just know what is best for people. Is paternalism only bad when it comes from the right?

[Razgovory]

Is that a yes?

[Admiral Yi]

It would not be worth it to me.  I might be willing to suppress a few votes to stop some parts of the conservative agenda.

If sneaking some ineligible voters into the voting booth were the only way to advance the liberal agenda, would you be in favor?

[KRonn]

I'm curious.  If voter suppression efforts where the only way to get the conservative agenda through, would it be worth it?

No, not as far as I'm concerned. Everyone should be free to have their say and their vote.

I don't feel that IDs violate that, unless done the wrong way, if that's where you're going. If not then sorry, but I still wouldn't go with suppression even if it's for promoting views I agree with. We need to have freely made decisions and choices, IMO.

[garbon]

Is that a yes?

How would you like me to answer?

[crazy canuck]

Again, who is going to provide those options?

Maybe solutions to complex social problems aren't simple enough that a single solution is adequate?

Of course not. I thought I suggested as much in my post.  However, if CC and Seedster are going to use this as an example of how the Republicans here are so unsympathetic then I'd like to see the plans they'd like endorsed.

You are missing the point then.  The response I get from the Goptards is people are like that because they dont care.

[Razgovory]

It would not be worth it to me.  I might be willing to suppress a few votes to stop some parts of the conservative agenda.

If sneaking some ineligible voters into the voting booth were the only way to advance the liberal agenda, would you be in favor?

Nope.  I believe in rule of law over political expediency.  This may shock you, but I'm not entirely convinced by my side's ideas.  While I wouldn't vote for Romney, I could tolerate him being President.

[Razgovory]

Is that a yes?

How would you like me to answer?

Honestly.  Like a true son of India.