Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is nothing new. MANY small towns do not want participation in their LOCAL elections by the transient student popluations that live there part of the year. These students don't care about the real issues of the PERMANENT TAXPAYING RESIDENTS. When I was in college in a small town in West Virginia, one of the students decided to run for a seat on the city council. The election board refused to accept him as a candidate eventhough he could prove residency and threw out all of our voter registrations.
Do the things the students vote for affect them during their lives spent in your state? Of course they do. Why should someone be forced to vote for an elected official or government policy in a state where they do not currently live?
Most states also have at least a full year required to prove student residency. Is that not enough for you? How many years does a person have to live in your state before you're willing to give that person the same rights as you?
Also, the majority of students in your state's colleges will be from your state. So why do you want to restrict their rights?
Quote:
So why do you want to restrict their rights?
Now all of a sudden we're worried about people's rights. Oh.....the irony
They are living in your state but you don't want them to enjoy any rights for a year or more. You especially want them to have to pay a lot of money to travel and vote. Got it. It's not particularly Constitutional, but what the heck, right?
Students often have residency issues when applying for a firearms license which impedes their ability to exercise their Constitutional firearms rights. How do you feel about that? That's rhetorical of course.
Ridicule is the last resort for someone who has lost the argument. You lose unless you can discuss this rationally.
EDIT: You asked a broad question, and then ridiculed me for not providing a specific answer. Try asking a specific question, and I'll try to answer it, otherwise this is not going to be a very good discussion.
Attacking someone personally is the last resort for someone who has lost the argument. Ridicule is reserved for people who make RIDICULOUS arguments.
This is total crap!!
if you think it is true then there is not much help for you
here in Georgia has MORE blacks registered to vote than white
we provided FREE ID's so more people can vote, but only once!!!
and to say voters are being cheated that is a lie!!!
You people are so full of shi^
And how does trying to strip college students of their voting rights stop voter fraud? Oh it doesn't? So who's the one full of shi^?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
This has been an issue with me as well, just because some kid is going to college in my state, why should that give him or her a vote in the elections of my state?
If you grew up in Georgia, went to K-12 in Georgia, your parents live in Georgia. Just because come to my state for a few school semesters, it should not entitle you to vote in elections or on laws which will change my city and state forever. The same goes for running for political office.
Your state? Someone that's going to live in that state for 4-5 years shouldn't have a say in the politics or laws that get passed? Are they somehow immune to any laws that get passed in that time? How about their taxes? I guess that whole 'no taxation w/o representation' thing is just for revolting against the British?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Let's look at an extreme version of early voting, and and say people had nine months to vote. That nine months would allow a lot of time for people to cause mischief and voter fraud in elections, especially when no one is required to prove who they actually are. It's obvious, the longer you allow voting to occur, the longer people who commit fraud would have to plan implement it.
You can look at the extreme version of anything to try to create a strawman. There is no voter fraud epidemic. There is nothing being "fixed" by trying to squash voter participation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
It also affects me when I visit a state, or vacation there. The point is, having a bunch of college kids who will never live in your state, influencing your politics, is just ignorant to me. They are only visiting the state by going to school, and they should not be allowed to screw up elections and laws, simply because they went to school there a few months out of the year.
Live, that is the point. Living and working and making a life in a state is different then going to college, off/on for a couple years in a state. Students who are attending college in my state are not coming here to live here, settle down, and make a life here.
If they are a college student, let them either drive or fly back home and vote, or fill out an absentee ballot for their home state.
They already live in your state and are already subject to all the laws that get passed there as well as pay taxes into the system. Saying they don't have a right to influence their LIFE is absurd, and can be applied to any group of people by any other group of state residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
This is nothing new. MANY small towns do not want participation in their LOCAL elections by the transient student popluations that live there part of the year. These students don't care about the real issues of the PERMANENT TAXPAYING RESIDENTS. When I was in college in a small town in West Virginia, one of the students decided to run for a seat on the city council. The election board refused to accept him as a candidate eventhough he could prove residency and threw out all of our voter registrations.
And when my friends grandfather was in school, he tried to vote and they told him he couldn't b/c he was Black. What's your point?
And I'm glad you brought up taxpaying b/c the vast majority of college students WORK, which means they PAY TAXES to whatever state they're working in. So thank you for adding your support to the disgusting practice that Republicans have been so blatant about.
Al Sharpton says a lot of things that many left-leaning folks don't agree with. Confusing Al Sharpton with "The Left" is like claiming that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton always agree with each other - it's ridiculously myopic. "The Left" includes a broad spectrum of perspective, generally opposed to the maniacal self-centeredness and avarice advocated by "The Right", but there are still many different perspectives within "The Left". The Democratic Party isn't like the fascist-like Republican Party, where if you say something that's not the precise party line you get labeled a RINO.
So you agree that both sides are hypocritical; it's ridiculous to take the ranting's of the few and say the entire party aligns with them.
Just imagine the condition of the DNC if it were filled entirely with Al Sharpton types. It would be impossible to cover-up the fact that it's not the party of tolerance.
throwing elections requires control of the state's entire voting apparatus like the Secretary of State being in your pocket, plus a sibling relationship with the governor of, oh, say, Florida ... or maybe owning the company that runs the voting booths in an entire state like, oh, Ohio.)
Al Sharpton says a lot of things that many left-leaning folks don't agree with. Confusing Al Sharpton with "The Left" is like claiming that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton always agree with each other - it's ridiculously myopic. "The Left" includes a broad spectrum of perspective, generally opposed to the maniacal self-centeredness and avarice advocated by "The Right", but there are still many different perspectives within "The Left". The Democratic Party isn't like the fascist-like Republican Party, where if you say something that's not the precise party line you get labeled a RINO.
So you agree that both sides are hypocritical
I didn't say anything remotely resembling to that. Why don't you just let my words say what I said, instead of trying to change them into something want to reply to?
This reform package doesn't expand and protect voting rights, it is intended to suppress voter turnout. I wish Republicans would at least have the balls to admit their agenda, people would at least respect the honesty.
This is nothing new. MANY small towns do not want participation in their LOCAL elections by the transient student popluations that live there part of the year. These students don't care about the real issues of the PERMANENT TAXPAYING RESIDENTS. When I was in college in a small town in West Virginia, one of the students decided to run for a seat on the city council. The election board refused to accept him as a candidate eventhough he could prove residency and threw out all of our voter registrations.
Then surely he was not registered to vote in the town he claimed residency. If he was smart, he should have first registered to vote in that town before running for local elective office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
