• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

The American Politics Discussion Thread

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Voter suppression failed to make it red again, you mean. And right now it's looking to be a 55-45 majority.

Then distance yourselves from the lunacy and call them out instead of pumping millions into supporting them. The Tea Party is a GOP faction, an they cost the GOP the senate, again. Haha.

The Democrats are the ones who engaged in voter suppression, by making it more difficult for our men and woman serving to vote. Shame on them!

The Democrats currently have 53 seats (54 if you count Bernie Sanders), but we actually gained seats in the House. Reasonable moderate Allen West's race is still too close to call.

Funny thought...

The USA says that they negotiate/comprimise with Terrorists.

The politicians are refuse to negotiate/comprimise with each other.

Politicians = Terrorists?

Anyway, I have a bit of hope that this time they will work together or, now that he doesn't have to worry about reelection, that Obama starts to push a lot heavier for some of his legislation.

Edit - Here's a idea for a reform. Change congresses/senates/presidents/andvicepresidents pay to a maxium of 300k. The kicker? Their approval ratings determine what percentage of that pay they get.

The Patriot Act and the NDAA go to show that many politicians are indeed terrorists.

My reform idea is to pay politicians minimum wage, and to make Congress part-time.
 
Last edited:
14,092
Posts
14
Years
The Democrats are the ones who engaged in voter suppression, by making it more difficult for our men and woman serving to vote. Shame on them!

The Democrats currently have 53 seats (54 if you count Bernie Sanders), but we actually gained seats in the House. Reasonable moderate Allen West's race is still too close to call.

lol


Yes, because the guy who called all the Democrats communists is a reasonable moderate.
 
Last edited:

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
lol


Yes, because the guy who called all the Democrsts communists is a reasonable moderate.

He said that 80 House Democrats are communists, and he's right. That's not even half of the 112th Congress' Democratic caucus!

Senator-elect Joe Donnelly comes from a line of Democrats that I like. Let's hope that he doesn't move to left while he's in the Senate.
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
The Democrats are the ones who engaged in voter suppression, by making it more difficult for our men and woman serving to vote. Shame on them!

Have you ever heard about "True the vote"republican-leaning groups trying to kick thousands of legitimate voters off the rolls, Republican counties telling Hispanic voters to show up to vote on November 8th, reduction of early voting in places like Ohio and Florida being pulled off by Republican officers and Governors and the Pennsylvania voter ID mess that was taken down by court? Because that sounds slightly worse than "making it more difficult for the military".
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Have you ever heard about "True the vote"republican-leaning groups trying to kick thousands of legitimate voters off the rolls, Republican counties telling Hispanic voters to show up to vote on November 8th, reduction of early voting in places like Ohio and Florida being pulled off by Republican officers and Governors and the Pennsylvania voter ID mess that was taken down by court? Because that sounds slightly worse than "making it more difficult for the military".

Illegal immigrants and the deceased are legitimate voters? I'm done.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
I agree with Freaky on that. Illegals and the deceased are not legitimate voters. However, while the Republicans are saying that those are the 'voters' that they want to get rid of, deep down they know that these legislations would also effect other legitimate voters. The fact that they started punching through this legislation near voting year only proves this point.

I like the ID laws, however the timing for them was very very bad. (Also, I don't see whats so hard about getting a ID. The prices vary from state to state, however given the large amount of things it is used for, and for how long they are valid before needing to be renewed, there isn't a legitimate reason to not have one.)

Anyway, if anyone wants to get pissed over voter disfranchisement, look at the Puerto Ricans. They are US citizens, however we do not allow them to vote.

And really, really? You think trying to restart the 'Red Scare' will help things? We done did that in the 60's, and we all know how badly that went.
 
Last edited:

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
I agree with Freaky on that. Illegals and the deceased are not legitimate voters. However, while the Republicans are saying that those are the 'voters' that they want to get rid of, deep down they know that these legislations would also effect other legitimate voters. The fact that they started punching through this legislation near voting year only proves this point.

I like the ID laws, however the timing for them was very very bad.

Anyway, if anyone wants to get pissed over voter disfranchisement, look at the Puerto Ricans. They are US citizens, however we do not allow them to vote.

And really, really? You think trying to restart the 'Red Scare' will help things? We done did that in the 60's, and we all know how badly that went.

They're not a state. Only states get representation in the United States government. This isn't a democracy.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Puerto Rico is, by law, required to allow certian individuals to vote via absentee ballet.

Essentially, the law is forcing them to allow certian, select and or privilaged, individuals to vote while the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are, legally, prevented from voting.

This is where things get real fuzzy.

If you have to reside in a state to vote, when why do we have UOCAVA? The information I'm finding is conflicting, some saying that UOCAVA lets a small number of people in Puerto Rico to vote and then some say that no one, at all, in Puerto Rico is allowed to vote.

Really, what needs to be done is some clarity. We either need to limit voting rights to only US citizens currently residing in the US, or we need to give voting rights to all US citizens, no matter their current residence. Voting rights can still be denied, either way, to those that have commited serious crimes in accordance with state and/or territorial laws.

Edit - This is made even worse as we have signed and ratified ICCPR, yet we have yet to comply with any of it. Keep in mind, that we signed and ratified this 20 years ago. Seriously, if we want to play International Politics then we need to start following though on things that we say, to the international community, we will do.

And again, the US was born from a rebellion because we, at the time British Citizens, were not given representation. I find it, very sad and slightly ironic, that we are now denying our own citizens the right to representation.
 
Last edited:
9,468
Posts
15
Years
Let's just round Florida off. It's all but likely Obama's win atm anyway.

Vote12-24.png

race-24.png


Final tally: 332-206
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Puerto Rico is, by law, required to allow certian individuals to vote via absentee ballet.

Essentially, the law is forcing them to allow certian, select and or privilaged, individuals to vote while the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are, legally, prevented from voting.

This is where things get real fuzzy.

If you have to reside in a state to vote, when why do we have UOCAVA? The information I'm finding is conflicting, some saying that UOCAVA lets a small number of people in Puerto Rico to vote and then some say that no one, at all, in Puerto Rico is allowed to vote.

Really, what needs to be done is some clarity. We either need to limit voting rights to only US citizens currently residing in the US, or we need to give voting rights to all US citizens, no matter their current residence. Voting rights can still be denied, either way, to those that have commited serious crimes in accordance with state and/or territorial laws.

Edit - This is made even worse as we have signed and ratified ICCPR, yet we have yet to comply with any of it. Keep in mind, that we signed and ratified this 20 years ago. Seriously, if we want to play International Politics then we need to start following though on things that we say, to the international community, we will do.

And again, the US was born from a rebellion because we, at the time British Citizens, were not given representation. I find it, very sad and slightly ironic, that we are now denying our own citizens the right to representation.

Puerto Rico can choose to become a state, then the people there will have representation.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Pretty sure all you need here for voter ID is anything formal that has your name on it.

One option is to present any kind of goverment-issued ID that has your name, picture, and address on it. Driver's license, passport, health card, whatever.

Option two is to present two pieces of authorized identification. So one would be a birth certificate (who doesn't have that?) and two is anything else that has your name on it (a bill, a credit card, a statement of government benefit, anything that says you exist).

It really isn't hard.

The problem is how they tried to push it through for this election cycle. The amount of voting fraud that exists is minuscule and I think it is very apparent that a lot more could have been negatively impacted given such short notice.

Set up now for the next time around, for sure. Just makes sense
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
Pretty sure all you need here for voter ID is anything formal that has your name on it.

One option is to present any kind of goverment-issued ID that has your name, picture, and address on it. Driver's license, passport, health card, whatever.

Option two is to present two pieces of authorized identification. So one would be a birth certificate (who doesn't have that?) and two is anything else that has your name on it (a bill, a credit card, a statement of government benefit, anything that says you exist).

It really isn't hard.

The problem is how they tried to push it through for this election cycle. The amount of voting fraud that exists is minuscule and I think it is very apparent that a lot more could have been negatively impacted given such short notice.

Set up now for the next time around, for sure. Just makes sense

Our troops should sue so that Obama can't suppress their votes. Lawsuits should also be filed over the fixing of voting machines that Obama-backing union workers were hired to "service", as well as allowing illegals to vote. He did not win a second term legitimately.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Our troops should sue so that Obama can't suppress their votes. Lawsuits should also be filed over the fixing of voting machines that Obama-backing union workers were hired to "service", as well as allowing illegals to vote. He did not win a second term legitimately.
So, Obama-backed union workers rigged the voting machines in Pennsylvania to switch Obama to Romney? All the other candidates listed worked just fine

And, isn't the process of absentee voting for the military under the jurisdiction of the state governments?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zet

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Our troops should sue so that Obama can't suppress their votes.

No.

You said it yourself, citizenship doesn't give the right to vote. If they want representation, or the option to vote, then they should be in a state.

He can supress them all he wants, they are not current residents of a US state so in accordance with current voting laws they don't have the right to vote.

Easiest solution is to change the voting laws to give the right to vote to all legal US citizens.

Edit - Some voting machines selected Obama even though the person pressed Romney. And, also, Romney was heavily invested in a company that was making some of the voting machines. And lets not forget, his people intentionally mistraining their poll watchers.

Basically, the 'supposed' voting manipulation is on both sides.
 

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot
3,498
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen Aug 29, 2018
No.

You said it yourself, citizenship doesn't give the right to vote. If they want representation, or the option to vote, then they should be in a state.

He can supress them all he wants, they are not current residents of a US state so in accordance with current voting laws they don't have the right to vote.

Easiest solution is to change the voting laws to give the right to vote to all legal US citizens.

Edit - Some voting machines selected Obama even though the person pressed Romney. And, also, Romney was heavily invested in a company that was making some of the voting machines. And lets not forget, his people intentionally mistraining their poll watchers.

Basically, the 'supposed' voting manipulation is on both sides.

In addition to being a United States citizen, people are also citizens of their respective states. This status does not change when one joins the military. Additionally, federal statutes exist to allow our overseas troops ample time to have their votes counted.

Giving all citizens an affirmative right to vote would require a constitutional amendment, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no affirmative right to vote.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
From Wiki

The U.S. Constitution requires a voter to be a resident in one of the 50 States or in the District of Columbia to vote in Federal elections.

The exceptions are if they are serving somewhere in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Under UOCAVA)

Edit - If voting isn't a right, then why so much contoversy over this subject? We are not denying them their rights, so whats the issue?
 

Bela

Banned
262
Posts
14
Years
My reform idea is to pay politicians minimum wage, and to make Congress part-time.

Mr. X said:
Edit - Here's a idea for a reform. Change congresses/senates/presidents/andvicepresidents pay to a maxium of 300k. The kicker? Their approval ratings determine what percentage of that pay they get.

Money certainly motivates politicians--but their pay as government employees is not what is influencing them. It's their donors! It's this system of legalized bribery we have. It's the offers to become a lobbyist, or have a cushy job in some firm of some industry that lobbied them while they were in office. That's part of what is called a "revolving door," where people from an industry will get into office, and those in office will go work in that industry. That's a real problem, not the pay these politicians get. Lowering their pay won't do much, maybe other than make for more craven politicians ready to take deals with lobbyists. They'll do more fundraising. You want to talk about excess? Look at executive pay. Look at corporate profits. They're higher than they've ever been.

Politicians are much derided and with good reason, but the real problem we have with them is the lobbying done to buy their votes. That's where we need some kind of reform. "Kicking the bums out" just puts new "bums" in, since they'll just be lobbied like those who came before them. Elections are a mostly superficial practice, where we replace one bought politician with another.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Money certainly motivates politicians--but their pay as government employees is not what is influencing them. It's their donors! It's this system of legalized bribery we have.

True that. We have laws designed to prevent this, however they are the ones writing the laws. Basically, they can write in loopholes for their use.

Anyway, the entire 'entitlement' situation is summed up in this pic.

wjo1352354189c.jpg


Edit - Yeah, thats Capitalism for yeah. With enough money, you can buy anything. Including people/votes/supporters.
 
10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
About militants not being able to vote if they're on duty - could they not have voted by mail/post in advance? I know in the UK the postal vote can be done weeks before the actual polling day.

Really there's no other way to do it, it's not that anyone is repressing their vote, it's just not possible sometimes.
 
Back
Top