DOE launches investigation into Maines compliance with title IX

StrangePackage said:
Again you claim to be here in good faith. Responses like these do not comport with that claim.

You have asserted something without evidence. You cannot complain that it was dismissed without evidence.

You're claiming that despite an absence of evidence, there is an actual occurrence of some issue which this legislation will address, and that the potential benefits of this legislation outweigh the potential harms. That's a substantially high bar, even if we were to assume that you were posting in good faith.
Click to expand...
That explains DEI initiatives.
 
ZenMode said:
Let's say 9% of all adults don't have a license. They may, as you mentioned, have a passport or a state issued ID, which isn't legal for driving but would be valid for voting.

The reason I mentioned "navigating life" in my original post is because it's very, very difficult to navigate life without an ID. You can't get a job. You can't open a bank account. You can't cash a check. You can't drive. You can't fly. I don't know about all states but, at least in AZ, you can't sign up for SNAP/welfare without an ID.

So, are the people who are existing in life in this manner, likely to be looking to vote? Do you think they are people who are likely to be in a mental state that they should be permitted to vote?
Click to expand...
Don't bring common sense into this
 
Silence Dogood said:
Of course you would spin it, can't have a real discussion. Got to have a bad guy on the other side to justify a dying Democratic platform.
Click to expand...
i didn't spin anything.

in a thread that you started under the auspices of caring about women you tried to employ a ridiculous, unbelievably insensitive analogy about something horrific that happens to women.

you're dumb and you post in bad faith. its not a winning combination.
 
ZenMode said:
The reason I mentioned "navigating life" in my original post is because it's very, very difficult to navigate life without an ID. You can't get a job. You can't open a bank account. You can't cash a check. You can't drive. You can't fly. I don't know about all states but, at least in AZ, you can't sign up for SNAP/welfare without an ID.
Click to expand...

None of the things you listed is a prerequisite to being eligible to vote.

ZenMode said:
So, are the people who are existing in life in this manner, likely to be looking to vote? Do you think they are people who are likely to be in a mental state that they should be permitted to vote?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I'm certainly not okay with stripping someone's right to vote because of these presumptions. Gonna need something more concrete before taking away a citizen's rights.
 
ZenMode said:
Let's say 9% of all adults don't have a license. They may, as you mentioned, have a passport or a state issued ID, which isn't legal for driving but would be valid for voting.

The reason I mentioned "navigating life" in my original post is because it's very, very difficult to navigate life without an ID. You can't get a job. You can't open a bank account. You can't cash a check. You can't drive. You can't fly. I don't know about all states but, at least in AZ, you can't sign up for SNAP/welfare without an ID.

So, are the people who are existing in life in this manner, likely to be looking to vote? Do you think they are people who are likely to be in a mental state that they should be permitted to vote?
Click to expand...
I do think it's likely that most of the people we're talking about are (1) elderly, and/or (2) poor and/or unemployed. The old people may have bank accounts that they got either before photo ID was required or when they had a valid ID. (Keep in mind that many of these people likely had a drivers' license at some point, but it may be expired and they have no reason to renew it.) The poor people may simply not have bank accounts and do everything with cash; a quick Google suggests that something like 4% of US households (which is probably 10 million adults or more) don't have a checking account.

But in any event I think you are making an unwarranted assumption that most or all of those people are not in "a mental state that they should be permitted to vote." Being poor isn't a mental illness. Lots of old people have physical difficulties that limit their driving, working, and other participation in life, but that doesn't mean they are not in a "mental state" that makes them incapable of voting. (Besides, we don't limit voting to only people who are smart and free of mental illness; lord knows I sometimes wish some of the stupidest people in this country didn't vote.)

It sounds like you essentially have no problem with barring 2.2 million people, or very likely more, from voting based on your assumption (not backed by anything approaching data) that some unknown percentage of them are not fit to vote anyway. It sounds like it is easy for you to justify disenfranchising these people because you assume they are not worthy of voting or otherwise participating in society. I find your position to be both arrogant and callous. I will also note that the reasoning you're using is essentially the same reasoning that the people whose rights you are taking away somehow have less right to participate in society, in whatever way they're able, than you do.
 
4thgenheel said:
i didn't spin anything.

in a thread that you started under the auspices of caring about women you tried to employ a ridiculous, unbelievably insensitive analogy about something horrific that happens to women.

you're dumb and you post in bad faith. its not a winning combination.
Click to expand...
I used your analogy against you, simple as that. Again, then you claim you're the moral expert, but won't give Trump credit for keeping men out of women's sports. Alot of women were tired of competing against men, but your type ignore that grievance because its pro Trump.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Trump ran on the issue, and voters backed him, now he's following through. No men in women's sports, don't complicate it.
Click to expand...
Less than 50% of voters backed him. And not all of them backed him because of this specific issue. In any event, it is one thing for Trump and his congressional majorities to enact federal law and regulations regarding transgender participation in women's sports. They can do that; they largely haven't, aside from the substance-free "protect women" act that is about as vague as possible. It is quite another thing to attempt to extort and intimidate states who don't comply with an unenacted executive order purporting to establish a binding interpretation of Title IX regulations that all states must adhere to, or all of their federal funding will be threatened. Our constitutional system of government does not allow for either that unilateral presidential action or for that sort of coercion of states through threatened arbitrary action. It will, absolutely, be struck down in court if Trump tries to push it.

If you really think Trump and Republicans have a "mandate" on this issue, then they can enact laws and regulations pursuant to existing law and attempt to enforce them. But this sort of "protection racket" strongman tactic is an affront to the constitution in multiple ways, which you might be able to grasp if you had something beyond a second grader's understanding of the constitution and our government.
 
rodoheel said:
Less than 50% of voters backed him. And not all of them backed him because of this specific issue. In any event, it is one thing for Trump and his congressional majorities to enact federal law and regulations regarding transgender participation in women's sports. They can do that; they largely haven't, aside from the substance-free "protect women" act that is about as vague as possible. It is quite another thing to attempt to extort and intimidate states who don't comply with an unenacted executive order purporting to establish a binding interpretation of Title IX regulations that all states must adhere to, or all of their federal funding will be threatened. Our constitutional system of government does not allow for either that unilateral presidential action or for that sort of coercion of states through threatened arbitrary action. It will, absolutely, be struck down in court if Trump tries to push it.

If you really think Trump and Republicans have a "mandate" on this issue, then they can enact laws and regulations pursuant to existing law and attempt to enforce them. But this sort of "protection racket" strongman tactic is an affront to the constitution in multiple ways, which you might be able to grasp if you had something beyond a second grader's understanding of the constitution and our government.
Click to expand...
Don't bring facts into this
 
lawtig02 said:
How about a universal identity card distributed by the federal government to every US citizen, with a backup database accessible to election workers in case a card is lost or not brought to the polls? And a $100,000 penalty paid by the relevant municipality to any citizen who proves in court the municipality improperly prevented the citizen from voting. We could also use the id cards and the database for other purposes, such as tracking tax cheats. Would that work as a compromise?
Click to expand...
I think involving municipalities in this - and making them the ones responsible for paying the fine - is a bad idea that would cause a lot of fairly justified opposition. Poll workers and volunteers are generally working under the auspices of the state board of elections or their county sub-boards; I think making the state responsible is a better idea. I also think $100k is an excessive fine. So make it, say, a penalty (plus recovery of attorneys' fees if the voter has to bring legal action to enforce) and make the state responsible,
 
Silence Dogood said:
What can we do to get those documents to those said individuals? What are the problems and let's find the solutions.
Click to expand...
Make it free for people to obtain a certified copy of their birth certificate. Make it free to get a passport. Make it available to those who are legit to get there docs easier, quicker, and for no fee.

At the end of the day, you won't be able to ensure that someone, somewhere won't be able to cast a vote illegally.

Now to Musk... WTF is he doing in DC? How is it that a South African National is up to his nose in our business?
Musk worked illegally in the US after leaving Stanford (without enrolling in classes, btw). He never publicly acknowledged his period of illegal status, but he did acknowledge that he lived in an immigration “gray area” for a time. He moved to Canada before becoming a US citizen... did he cross the border into our country illegally? Of course he did.
In 1995, Musk arrived in Palo Alto, California to attend Stanford University for a graduate degree program, but he never enrolled in classes. Sounds fishy to me...
Musk's visa issues could impact his security clearance, which he holds as the CEO of SpaceX. Again, sounds a bit dodgy to me... yet here he is...

And you're worried that there "may be" massive illegals voting in future elections - and you're willing to disenfranchise legit citizens and infringe upon their right to vote by implementing a poll tax (highly unconstitutional and which has been decided a long time ago) - yet you're ok with a foreigner who crossed into our country illegally and who admittedly "lived in an immigration gray area" who supposedly attended one of our Universities without enrolling in any classes, and who now has his finger in every friggin pie we have in our Nation?

You've been weighed, measured and found wanting. You're nothing but a troll and a nit wit. Fuck You.
 
Last edited:
rodoheel said:
I think involving municipalities in this - and making them the ones responsible for paying the fine - is a bad idea that would cause a lot of fairly justified opposition. Poll workers and volunteers are generally working under the auspices of the state board of elections or their county sub-boards; I think making the state responsible is a better idea. I also think $100k is an excessive fine. So make it, say, a penalty (plus recovery of attorneys' fees if the voter has to bring legal action to enforce) and make the state responsible,
Click to expand...
I’m sure we could find a satisfactory compromise on those types of things, but alas, Silence doesn’t appear to be interested in doing something that would actually make it harder to commit voter fraud.
 
rodoheel said:
Less than 50% of voters backed him. And not all of them backed him because of this specific issue. In any event, it is one thing for Trump and his congressional majorities to enact federal law and regulations regarding transgender participation in women's sports. They can do that; they largely haven't, aside from the substance-free "protect women" act that is about as vague as possible. It is quite another thing to attempt to extort and intimidate states who don't comply with an unenacted executive order purporting to establish a binding interpretation of Title IX regulations that all states must adhere to, or all of their federal funding will be threatened. Our constitutional system of government does not allow for either that unilateral presidential action or for that sort of coercion of states through threatened arbitrary action. It will, absolutely, be struck down in court if Trump tries to push it.

If you really think Trump and Republicans have a "mandate" on this issue, then they can enact laws and regulations pursuant to existing law and attempt to enforce them. But this sort of "protection racket" strongman tactic is an affront to the constitution in multiple ways, which you might be able to grasp if you had something beyond a second grader's understanding of the constitution and our government.
Click to expand...
Yep, ignore the 77 million, the clean sweep of swing states, and electoral beat down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top