1 edit
@Earl-of-Trumps saidYour vote to unnecessarily burden and in millions of cases, nullify others' rights?
@no1marauder said - Individual rights trump ill-informed public opinion in our system.
Thank you.
So I will use my individual right to vote in opposition to your ill-informed opinion.
Have a nice day
At least you're not longer faking the "libertarian" thingy; you're just doing full blown Republican hack now.
@no1marauder saidGo ahead, keep making a fool of yourself.
Your vote to unnecessarily burden and in millions of cases, nullify others' rights?
At least you're not longer faking the "libertarian" thingy; you're just doing full blown Republican hack now.
BING:
Libertarians typically argue that voter ID laws, if implemented, should be minimally invasive, avoid imposing
undue burdens on citizens, and ensure that all eligible voters have easy access to the necessary identification.
====================
https://lawshun.com/article/do-libertarians-believe-in-voter-id-law#google_vignette
Libertarians And Voter Id Laws: Balancing Freedom And Election Integrity
Ultimately, libertarian perspectives on voter ID laws vary, reflecting a broader
tension between safeguarding election integrity and upholding individual rights.
And you know where to put your lies/insults.
@no1marauder saidYeah, and I told my friend to build his fence inside his neighbors property line. So that’s what I did, just like the progressives do things. That does not make it right
Probably wasn't mentioned on Breitbart, but progressive organizations opposed Real ID when it was enacted in 2005 and called for its repeal long ago: https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/national-id/real-id
You, and the progressive, are not right on this one. You think the progressives have rights to not allow photo ID. but, Are you trampling over MY right to know who is voting for my president, and to be assured that the person voting for my president is a citizen of the United States????. Is that a right of mine? You will say “yes it is average Joe”; therefore you cannot justify trampling on that right.
You guys are so conflicted it is pitiful. Here I shoot you down once again.
I clarify for Susiann et al: we all have a right, a right, to be sure that someone voting for our president is a citizen. Follow me here. Marauder says that I do not have a right to know if a person voting for my president is a citizen. Please follow me here. Don’t lose me here. This is a very big point , and of course proof that I have whipped marauder one more time on the forum.👏
@AverageJoe1 saidAs already shown, every State has methods to verify a person voting is a citizen, so your post is a non sequitur.
Yeah, and I told my friend to build his fence inside his neighbors property line. So that’s what I did, just like the progressives do things. That does not make it right
You, and the progressive, are not right on this one. You think the progressives have rights to not allow photo ID. but, Are you trampling over MY right to know who is voting for my president, and to ...[text shortened]... is a very big point , and of course proof that I have whipped marauder one more time on the forum.👏
@Earl-of-Trumps saidThe SAVE Act meets none of those requirements, so libertarians should oppose it.
Go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself.
BING:
Libertarians typically argue that voter ID laws, if implemented, should be minimally invasive, avoid imposing
undue burdens on citizens, and ensure that all eligible voters have easy access to the necessary identification.
====================
https://lawshun.com/article/do-libertarians-believe-in-voter-i ...[text shortened]... lection integrity and upholding individual rights.
And you know where to put your lies/insults.
@no1marauder saidI think you should go lecture the Libertarians. I'm sure they'd love to hear you define them.
The SAVE Act meets none of those requirements, so libertarians should oppose it.
[sigh]
@no1marauder saidEVERYONE…. I wrote a post, that I as a citizen have a RIGHT to know that a person voting for MY president is a citizen.. You all agree of course. Constitution and all that.
As already shown, every State has methods to verify a person voting is a citizen, so your post is a non sequitur.
, Marodder the Dodger wrote about states having methods to, let me get this straight , (esp u Suzianne) , methods to verify a person is a citizen.
For the sake of argument, let us say that marauder is 100% right about states having methods. You see, liberals, that is not my question. Here is my question. Jesus. Off to debate school with you,….you too, Marauder!
Question: Does Suzianne have a RIGHT know if some voting for HER PRESIDENT is a citizen of the USA?
1 edit
@Earl-of-Trumps saidMaybe you'd like to talk to them about immigration or drug legalization or the death penalty or a myriad of other issues where you have adopted positions here contrary to basic libertarian principles while trying to pawn yourself off as one.
I think you should go lecture the Libertarians. I'm sure they'd love to hear you define them.
[sigh]
On every issue but those where the US party has adopted laissez faire principles in the late 20th Century, I'm in agreement with libertarians. So maybe I would have a better understanding of what they would think of the SAVE Act then you. As it stands now the procedures it mandates are not " minimally invasive", it certainly does not "avoid imposing undue burdens on citizens" and it hardly "ensure(s) that all eligible voters have easy access to the necessary identification."
@no1marauder saidTalking about Libertarianism. So you threw in the towel on the Voter ID act?
Maybe you'd like to talk to them about immigration or drug legalization or the death penalty or a myriad of other issues where you have adopted positions here contrary to basic libertarian principles while trying to pawn yourself off as one.
On every issue but those where the US party has adopted laissez faire principles in the late 20th Century, I'm in agreement with ...[text shortened]... and it hardly "ensure(s) that all eligible voters have easy access to the necessary identification."
Your sudden shift here is not going to beat the 84%, either.
Throw in another white towel.
1 edit
@Earl-of-Trumps saidI suggest you read my post.
Talking about Libertarianism. So you threw in the towel on the Voter ID act?
Your sudden shift here is not going to beat the 84%, either.
Throw in another white towel.
I've already pointed out the fallacy of your "84%" argument.
And since the SAVE Act has zero chance of passage, maybe you should be throwing in the towel. Happily, my State will continue to use its more efficient and inclusive way to verify citizen ID than the ineffective yet burdensome way right wingers want it done.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhere would such a right come from? The Constitution clearly says that even citizens don't have any inherent "right" to vote on who is President:
EVERYONE…. I wrote a post, that I as a citizen have a RIGHT to know that a person voting for MY president is a citizen.. You all agree of course. Constitution and all that.
, Marodder the Dodger wrote about states having methods to, let me get this straight , (esp u Suzianne) , methods to verify a person is a citizen.
For the sake of argument, let us say that ma ...[text shortened]... uestion: Does Suzianne have a RIGHT know if some voting for HER PRESIDENT is a citizen of the USA?
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
@no1marauder said“As with any employer, the City of New York has a legal obligation under federal law to verify work authorization and maintain proper documentation before issuing payment. We are not legally permitted to hand out checks without completing that process."
What BS. The policy has been in effect since the program was started in 2016 AND as stated by Joshua Goodman, the deputy commissioner for public affairs and customer experience at the DSNY,:
“As with any employer, the City of New York has a legal obligation under federal law to verify work authorization and maintain proper documentation before issuing payment. ...[text shortened]...
You guys really need to step out of the MAGA echo chamber once in a while for the actual facts.
Just what exactly is the reasoning behind that?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNo thanks to Donald Trump, the entire Republican Party, especially the Trumpublican faction, have become world-class liars in their own right.
Maybe you'd like to talk to them about immigration or drug legalization or the death penalty or a myriad of other issues where you have adopted positions here contrary to basic libertarian principles while trying to pawn yourself off as one.
On every issue but those where the US party has adopted laissez faire principles in the late 20th Century, I'm in agreement with ...[text shortened]... and it hardly "ensure(s) that all eligible voters have easy access to the necessary identification."
Maybe Republican voters should sue the Party for taking advantage of their rather obvious disability.
@AverageJoe1 saidYour neighbor has a right to vote, without anyone else demanding to know how he voted. This includes you wanting to stick your nose into his personal business. As long as the state where he votes is satisfied as to his eligibility, you have NO right to act like such a Karen. He can, and probably should, sue you for harassment and defamation.
Yeah, and I told my friend to build his fence inside his neighbors property line. So that’s what I did, just like the progressives do things. That does not make it right
You, and the progressive, are not right on this one. You think the progressives have rights to not allow photo ID. but, Are you trampling over MY right to know who is voting for my president, and to ...[text shortened]... is a very big point , and of course proof that I have whipped marauder one more time on the forum.👏
@no1marauder saidAnother reason to abolish the Electoral College and allow US citizens to directly vote, without having to trust their state's electors to vote for them. An Amendment to the Constitution could allow this. It's long, long past time for this. One person, one vote. Instead of being allowed to decide how many votes your state gets based on population. This means that not every US citizen's votes have equal weight.
Where would such a right come from? The Constitution clearly says that even citizens don't have any inherent "right" to vote on who is President:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1